Compare and contrast the progress air travel,
which had heavy private involvement, has made
this century, with the progress made by space
launch, which was mainly developed and is dominated
by the government. They're still flying cargo to
ISS at $ 5000/pound or more with the Space Scuttle.
Is that really what you want pharmaceuticals
research to look like?
About the ethanol thing... the Feds (yes,
run by George Bush) are currently pushing
ethanol as a fuel additive to produce cleaner
burning gas; they're currently being fought
by the state of California (yes, and their
ecologically "correct" Governor Grayout Davis)
who says that cleaner gas isn't needed in most
of the state. I know this doesn't conform to the
illogical prejudices of most of the people here,
but I suggest checking the LA Times for more info.
I have one thing to say: if you think we understand
the human body, and the biochemical pathways,
that well, you're vastly mistaken. Nuclear explosions
are very easy to model in comparison to the human
body. The first bomb was built in the '40's, but
we have yet to "build" a human body.
I was wondering, if patents are evil, does
this mean that things will get better when we
go back to the stage of development when everything
was a trade secret?
Regarding cutting through "lesser" blades
with the katana, I thought that wasn't easily
possible, given that most katanas are
draw blades which don't have an
optimum angle for cutting metal. Since iron
was so expensive in Japan, there weren't that
many people in Japan wearing metal armor, and
it didn't matter anyway; it was more important for
the metal to be light instead. In China, things
were different; there the Warlord of Wu (for example) really could afford to buy armor for himself and a couple tens of thousands of his close personal friends. Hence the difference between Japanese and Chinese sword designs (well, that, and Japanese swordmaking was, besides a good way of making a sword, a good way of making a good sword from lousy feedstock materials.
(ObSF: The war over the iron mine in Princess Mononoke; also, the secret to making the Green Destiny sword in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which had been lost.
Hmm. I thought pattern welding was used as a
useful metalworking technique for over a thousand
years, and not just to imitate the appearance
of Damascus steel.
Then again, there's a lot of metalworking tech
besides Damascus steel that's been kinda-sorta
lost, like a lot of the twist-core stuff used
by the Franks, Vikings, and Chinese. The Franks
also supposedly folded the metal multiple times,
just like the Japanese did.
I agree. I think it would cut down on a
lot of useless patents if companies needed a
working implementation of something before they
could patent it. I have heard of companies that
had working implementations of things, but since
they weren't first at the patent office, they were
only allowed to stay in business during the one
to two year period it took for the patentholder
to actually figure out how to implement the patent.
One of my favorite of his works is
Orion Shall Rise, which is very interesting
in the way it plays with the concept of utopia, and
also makes you almost not notice the parallels
with norse myth at the same time.
What Democrat are you talking about? Clinton
closed down the SDIO office, killed their programs,
and allowed some to start up again under another
name (BMDO) that he could take credit for.
Actually, this brings up a question: if suitcase
bombs are so much cheaper than ICBM's and IRBM's,
why are countries like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea
spending so much money in ICBM's and IRBM's instead?
Maybe they know something we don't, or thought
through the whole "smuggle the bomb in" scenario
and thought it less likely than everyone who believes
in it.
My guess is, they just didn't want to pay
for a large air-defense radar for a small island
that's twice the size of a golf course. The
heat-up-the-reentry vehicle bit in an earlier
test was, I think, actually legitimate, but on
the whole I'm suspicious of this actual implementation
of missile defense (although I like the idea of
missile defense). Unfortunately, we've reduced the
number of defense contractors to the point where
we have much less of a choice for alternative systems. Which is a real scandal that isn't really being covered anywhere. With the design bureaus we have now, I'm not sure strategic defense is possible.
I wonder, really, whether Intel is complaining
about patents in general or the fact that little
people besides Intel can actually afford to get
patents and have them enforced.
I know it's fashionable to hate patents, but
consider the source (and shading) of the information;
Intel does use patents as a competitive edge, and
was a major investor in Rambus, the ultimate
patent trollers of all time.
Personally, I think the X-33-as-bomber is
about as bad an idea as the X-33-as-launcher
was. Let's face it, it failed as an x-vehicle
testbed for launcher tech, and for a lot of the
same reasons, it would make a lousy bomber. I
would guess the military would rather have something
that a) took off from regular runways, b) used
easier-to-deal-with-fuels like kerosene, and
c) was more structurally efficient. X-33 didn't
get anything from its lifting-body shape, and eventually wound up with bigger wings than competing designs).
Tritium has a half-life of somewhere around
a dozen years; one of the decay paths is to
Helium-3. So you can make Tritium into Helium
3 just by waiting.
Yes, I concur. Way back when I was doing some
research projects on Ball Lightning, it appeared
that Koloc's model was the only one that was matching
the reports I got. Especially the one where...
hmm... maybe I should save that detail for the
patent application.
Seriously, I like
Koloc's idea a lot, and wonder what he could do
with more funding.
As one of the aforementioned "evull oilmen"
I'd like to ask, if Bush etc. are so corrupted
by the oil industry, why do they stress
nuclear fission power su much in their energy
plan?
I mean, it's a nice theory, but the realities
of nuclear power's potential (instead of the if-we-use-it-we're-going-to-die crowd) and the fact that he's pushing it suggest otherwise.
Finally, if fission can't be made safe, what makes you think they'll allow fusion? The reactor walls get radioactive, which causes a fairly long-lived waste problem by itself. What's the point in developing fusion if we can't even deal with fission, which is a much simpler system?
Funny, this is basically the same project
that Bush Sr (and Dan Quayle) funded, then
Clinton strangled, transferred to NASA, which
crashed it and replaced it with the X-33 monstrosity.
Thanks to the Clinton-era mergers, the corporation
which thought DC-X was possible doesn't even
exist anymore.
The main question is,
what's next? Are we going to let NASA run our entire
space program, or are we going to finally let DoD
and DAPRA do reusable launch research again? You may not know this, but for about the past eight years, DoD research into reusable launch vehicles was forbidden. Maybe they were scared they'd come up with something that worked.
Well, since Clinton increaced the number
of deployments so much over the past eight years,
while cutting the budget, it's created an enourmous
logistics shortfall for the military. Yes, it's
expensive, but it's cheap for what we ask it to
do, and yes, that includes all the stuff the
Democrats ask it to do.
Given that this is the "Now The Hendersons
Have The Bomb" age, thanks to Russian nonchalance
towards nonproliferation, we pretty much have
a choice between strategic defense or
massively building up the nuclear arsenal
or surrender.
Communism fell, but
everyone forgot to tell the Russians.
Maybe Star Wars will give us a real launcher program.
SDIO was the last group working on one, before
Clinton killed the group and turned over the launcher to NASA for strangulation and burial.
I've been thinking to myself... the ultimate
goal is cheap space launch. However, NASA has been
unable to do anything to bring down the cost of
space launch via chemical rockets. The Russians
launch a pound into orbit far more cheaply than we can; of course, some of that is because of the "fire sale" state of the industry, but the matter remains, it costs NASA far more to launch the space shuttle than fuel costs alone (by a factor of four or five); trying to save fuel is a false economy.
I don't think they're going to be able to change
any of this by using a nuclear power source. Maybe
if they hadn't managed to screw up DC-X (which was
doing fine when it was at SDIO), and X-33, and the
shuttle before that, and to stifle independent developments in the field, I'd think of them as competent to study a nuclear launcher. But thus far I don't think they are.
China never was communist... It's always been an almost monarchical dictatorship acting under the guise of communism...
Well, if you want to say it's capitalist,
despite the fact that most of the so-called
"capitalist" economy there, and all of the important
bits, like telecommunications, are owned by
the government, or the party (same thing) or the
army (same thing)... I guess it's one of those dividing line things; communists like to think a system could have majority government ownership and control of the means of production and still be capitalist instead of communist. Capitalists don't. I'm more inclined to believe the capitalists about this than the communists.
Slashdot Mirror
Compare and contrast the progress air travel,
which had heavy private involvement, has made
this century, with the progress made by space
launch, which was mainly developed and is dominated
by the government. They're still flying cargo to
ISS at $ 5000/pound or more with the Space Scuttle.
Is that really what you want pharmaceuticals
research to look like?
About the ethanol thing... the Feds (yes,
run by George Bush) are currently pushing
ethanol as a fuel additive to produce cleaner
burning gas; they're currently being fought
by the state of California (yes, and their
ecologically "correct" Governor Grayout Davis)
who says that cleaner gas isn't needed in most
of the state. I know this doesn't conform to the
illogical prejudices of most of the people here,
but I suggest checking the LA Times for more info.
I have one thing to say: if you think we understand
the human body, and the biochemical pathways,
that well, you're vastly mistaken. Nuclear explosions
are very easy to model in comparison to the human
body. The first bomb was built in the '40's, but
we have yet to "build" a human body.
I was wondering, if patents are evil, does
this mean that things will get better when we
go back to the stage of development when everything
was a trade secret?
Regarding cutting through "lesser" blades with the katana, I thought that wasn't easily possible, given that most katanas are draw blades which don't have an optimum angle for cutting metal. Since iron was so expensive in Japan, there weren't that many people in Japan wearing metal armor, and it didn't matter anyway; it was more important for the metal to be light instead. In China, things were different; there the Warlord of Wu (for example) really could afford to buy armor for himself and a couple tens of thousands of his close personal friends. Hence the difference between Japanese and Chinese sword designs (well, that, and Japanese swordmaking was, besides a good way of making a sword, a good way of making a good sword from lousy feedstock materials.
(ObSF: The war over the iron mine in Princess Mononoke; also, the secret to making the Green Destiny sword in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which had been lost.
Then again, there's a lot of metalworking tech besides Damascus steel that's been kinda-sorta lost, like a lot of the twist-core stuff used by the Franks, Vikings, and Chinese. The Franks also supposedly folded the metal multiple times, just like the Japanese did.
I agree. I think it would cut down on a lot of useless patents if companies needed a working implementation of something before they could patent it. I have heard of companies that had working implementations of things, but since they weren't first at the patent office, they were only allowed to stay in business during the one to two year period it took for the patentholder to actually figure out how to implement the patent.
If I remember rightly, Mr. Anderson was one of the founders of the SCA.
One of my favorite of his works is Orion Shall Rise, which is very interesting in the way it plays with the concept of utopia, and also makes you almost not notice the parallels with norse myth at the same time.
What Democrat are you talking about? Clinton closed down the SDIO office, killed their programs, and allowed some to start up again under another name (BMDO) that he could take credit for.
Of course, we did lose DC-X...
Actually, this brings up a question: if suitcase bombs are so much cheaper than ICBM's and IRBM's, why are countries like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea spending so much money in ICBM's and IRBM's instead?
Maybe they know something we don't, or thought through the whole "smuggle the bomb in" scenario and thought it less likely than everyone who believes in it.
My guess is, they just didn't want to pay for a large air-defense radar for a small island that's twice the size of a golf course. The heat-up-the-reentry vehicle bit in an earlier test was, I think, actually legitimate, but on the whole I'm suspicious of this actual implementation of missile defense (although I like the idea of missile defense). Unfortunately, we've reduced the number of defense contractors to the point where we have much less of a choice for alternative systems. Which is a real scandal that isn't really being covered anywhere. With the design bureaus we have now, I'm not sure strategic defense is possible.
I wonder, really, whether Intel is complaining about patents in general or the fact that little people besides Intel can actually afford to get patents and have them enforced.
I know it's fashionable to hate patents, but consider the source (and shading) of the information; Intel does use patents as a competitive edge, and was a major investor in Rambus, the ultimate patent trollers of all time.
Personally, I think the X-33-as-bomber is about as bad an idea as the X-33-as-launcher was. Let's face it, it failed as an x-vehicle testbed for launcher tech, and for a lot of the same reasons, it would make a lousy bomber. I would guess the military would rather have something that a) took off from regular runways, b) used easier-to-deal-with-fuels like kerosene, and c) was more structurally efficient. X-33 didn't get anything from its lifting-body shape, and eventually wound up with bigger wings than competing designs).
Actually, the main political problem with SPS is that we don't have cheap launch vehicles. Which is, IMHO, a problem of political origin.
Except solar power isn't free; there's the cost and amortization of the solar cells to consider.
PS: I'm having trouble getting to new scientist's site. Any alternative sources of this news?
Tritium has a half-life of somewhere around a dozen years; one of the decay paths is to Helium-3. So you can make Tritium into Helium 3 just by waiting.
Yes, I concur. Way back when I was doing some research projects on Ball Lightning, it appeared that Koloc's model was the only one that was matching the reports I got. Especially the one where... hmm... maybe I should save that detail for the patent application.
Seriously, I like Koloc's idea a lot, and wonder what he could do with more funding.
As one of the aforementioned "evull oilmen" I'd like to ask, if Bush etc. are so corrupted by the oil industry, why do they stress nuclear fission power su much in their energy plan?
I mean, it's a nice theory, but the realities of nuclear power's potential (instead of the if-we-use-it-we're-going-to-die crowd) and the fact that he's pushing it suggest otherwise.
Finally, if fission can't be made safe, what makes you think they'll allow fusion? The reactor walls get radioactive, which causes a fairly long-lived waste problem by itself. What's the point in developing fusion if we can't even deal with fission, which is a much simpler system?
Funny, this is basically the same project that Bush Sr (and Dan Quayle) funded, then Clinton strangled, transferred to NASA, which crashed it and replaced it with the X-33 monstrosity. Thanks to the Clinton-era mergers, the corporation which thought DC-X was possible doesn't even exist anymore.
The main question is, what's next? Are we going to let NASA run our entire space program, or are we going to finally let DoD and DAPRA do reusable launch research again? You may not know this, but for about the past eight years, DoD research into reusable launch vehicles was forbidden. Maybe they were scared they'd come up with something that worked.
Well, since Clinton increaced the number of deployments so much over the past eight years, while cutting the budget, it's created an enourmous logistics shortfall for the military. Yes, it's expensive, but it's cheap for what we ask it to do, and yes, that includes all the stuff the Democrats ask it to do.
Given that this is the "Now The Hendersons Have The Bomb" age, thanks to Russian nonchalance towards nonproliferation, we pretty much have a choice between strategic defense or massively building up the nuclear arsenal or surrender.
Communism fell, but everyone forgot to tell the Russians.
Maybe Star Wars will give us a real launcher program. SDIO was the last group working on one, before Clinton killed the group and turned over the launcher to NASA for strangulation and burial.
I've been thinking to myself... the ultimate goal is cheap space launch. However, NASA has been unable to do anything to bring down the cost of space launch via chemical rockets. The Russians launch a pound into orbit far more cheaply than we can; of course, some of that is because of the "fire sale" state of the industry, but the matter remains, it costs NASA far more to launch the space shuttle than fuel costs alone (by a factor of four or five); trying to save fuel is a false economy.
I don't think they're going to be able to change any of this by using a nuclear power source. Maybe if they hadn't managed to screw up DC-X (which was doing fine when it was at SDIO), and X-33, and the shuttle before that, and to stifle independent developments in the field, I'd think of them as competent to study a nuclear launcher. But thus far I don't think they are.
Actually, rather than cut off the low-end towers, they could have dropped the price of the cube to much lower than the towers.
That would be thinking like a company that wants to actually reclaim market share, instead of one that just wants to be a boutique brand.
Well, if you want to say it's capitalist, despite the fact that most of the so-called "capitalist" economy there, and all of the important bits, like telecommunications, are owned by the government, or the party (same thing) or the army (same thing)... I guess it's one of those dividing line things; communists like to think a system could have majority government ownership and control of the means of production and still be capitalist instead of communist. Capitalists don't. I'm more inclined to believe the capitalists about this than the communists.