Because it means we either need backup power, or massive amounts of energy storage, here on Earth. Of course, the cost of that system would be absolutely dwarfed by the cost of getting the solar energy station set up on the Moon.
These are just bulk unmanned launches. Since you're talking about decades of effort to build this thing, it doesn't really matter how long it takes to get there. Have an electric tug that relays back and forth between Earth and Lunar orbit. Then your launch vehicle only needs around an extra ~2km/s for landing, and a bit of reaction mass to refuel the tug.
Since you're actually looking at the projected surface area, and beyond a critical angle the panels will be reflective, the effective surface area is really more like 25% of the total surface area of the array.
Most reasonable plans for beamed microwave power have a receiving station encompassing several square miles, making it much easier to focus the beam, and resulting in relatively low beam intensity.
According to TFA, the materials would come from earth, so why go to extra effort to take them down to the lunar surface, halving their effectiveness?
That's just stupid. The lunar surface is covered in silicon, and has plenty of iron, aluminum, and magnesium. Ship a refinery and fab up to the Moon, and whatever trace dopants and alloys you need. Build your solar panels, the structure on which to mount them, and the infrastructure to connect them to, on site, using the power generated by it.
I've seen estimates of 1.2 mw per square km for solar
I wouldn't trust that estimate. That's all of 1.2W/m^2. Solar radiation at our average orbit is more than 1000x that. Silicon and GaAs panels would be 200-300W/m^2. Even thin film panels should be in the several tens of watts. Remember, there's no atmospheric dissipation, nor any issues with weather. All you have to worry about are eclipses, micrometeorite damage, and radiation damage. Better have enough storage capacity to hold you over during those eclipses.
The number one rule of writing exploit-free code is NEVER TRUST THE CLIENT. EVER. There should NEVER be ANYTHING a user can do or run on their machine which can give them an advantage or opportunity to cheat... if they can then YOU fucked up when you wrote the code.
In other words, all games must operate in a mainframe/terminal fashion, where the client is just a dumb viewer and all game code is running on a private server outside the user's control. Even then, you would still have to worry about applications running mechanical vision algorithms and guiding the mouse and keyboard inputs autonomously.
It was done with authorization. You authorized it when you agreed to the terms of use of a VAC-protected game, playing on VAC-protected servers.
The trouble with this is the same as trouble with things like IDS, it only works through obscurity. As an IDS protects against an attacker, anti-cheat protects against you, and the only way it is going to work is if you don't know what it is doing. If you knew how it operated, you could alter your actions to bypass its detection mechanisms, as has supposedly happened now that the behavior has become public.
I don't care what it is sending or not sending to Valve. It's still an unnecessary invasion of privacy. In fact, its so easy to circumvent that I have a hard time believing that he is even being honest about why they are looking at the DNS records to begin with. How hard is it to clear my history, browse in Incognito mode, or do all of my cheating on a separate machine or in a VM? Trivial.
It's not your web browser accessing cheat websites, it's your cheat software itself accessing its servers. Clearing your history or browsing in Incognito mode won't do anything. You cannot use a VM, since the cheat software must be run on the same machine as you are running the game (and VAC).
And in fact, it may incorrectly flag me as a potential cheater anyway. I have looked up exploit information for games. I did not look in order to cheat at the game, but because I kept running into people who were not being busted for cheating and I wanted to know how they were exploiting the game. I was looking for a better way to tell when someone was cheating, not to actually cheat myself.
Then it will not flag you as a potential cheater, since you were not running the cheat software to access the DNS entries in question. Further, it would never flag you as a potential anyway. This mechanism is only triggered after some other behavior has already flagged you as a potential cheater. This is a confirmation mechanism.
While the basic idea of a piece of software accessing and reporting this information, at least in Valve's public explanation of what they were doing, it was entirely in good faith.
It's more like an anti-theft service that when it thinks the laptop may have been stolen, it then turns on the camera to see who is using the laptop. Access to the DNS cache is only triggered by some other first-tier behavior.
Who ever said anything about 10Gb ethernet switches? First, this is long range communications where copper ethernet simply doesn't function. We're talking more expensive DSL or DOCSIS gear, or much more expensive PON gear. Second, 1TB/mo is only around 3Mbps. The average broadband internet connection these days is going to be many times that, regardless of whether they're using 1GB/mo or 1TB/mo.
Someone who uses 10GB a month should pay ten times as much as someone who uses 1GB a month
While I agree with you in principle, your pricing structure is way off. There is a physical infrastructure that must be maintained regardless of whether you're using 1GB/mo or 1TB/mo. Your proposal would require breaking out a separate network access fee, which would be the overwhelming bulk of the cost for someone only using 1GB/mo.
Do these people claiming allowing ISPs to charge providers even understand how the internet works? Providers buy bandwidth from one ISP. Consumers buy bandwidth from another ISP. Those ISPs then decide amongst themselves who has the more valuable network, and one ends up paying the other for access. If consumer ISPs think they deserve more for access to their customers, they charge their peers, and those peers in turn charge Netflix and their ilk more. Charging them directly would constitute triple dipping.
It's a double edged sword. While some users are going to be alienated, some users are going to try to figure out why they cannot play the content, and thus learn the issues surrounding licensing and the decision to use open (unchallenged) formats.
Well if tropical is anything between the tropics, namely from -23 to 23 degrees, and the arctic is from -90 to -67 degrees and 67 to 90 degrees, Sochi sitting at 43.5 degrees is nearly right in the middle, hence semi-tropic. Of course, that would also make it semi-arctic by that logic, which sounds like a pretty good place to hold Winter Olympics.
For what it's worth, industrial data buses in general implement no form of data security. They all rely on physical security. CAN just seems to be following the standard.
But we're talking about a couple hundred miles, not the thousand or more typical of cruise missiles. Hypersonic SA and AA missiles are often capable of similar range, if perhaps not at that low altitude.
Also ballistic hyper velocity missiles do not have the fuel tank you refer to.
Ballistic hypersonic missiles don't stay hypersonic unless undergoing re-entry. If you're deep in the atmosphere at a shallow slope, you bleed that velocity real fast unless you've got a motor.
People might react badly to being scorched by lasers from the sky, after all.
During time of war, when you're dealing with an inbound missile and multiple millions, if not billions, of dollars worth of equipment, there's a bit of "better you than me" attitude.
That's why the aircraft carrier has multiple forms of missile defense systems, and is surrounded by many different ships with more missile defense systems. You're not just attacking a carrier. You're attacking a carrier group, with upwards of a thousand anti-missile missiles of different types between them. The same would be said should they transition to LASER or kinetic defense systems.
You're already 10 miles down range by the time you've managed to jink a couple degrees. A hypersonic missile cannot accelerate laterally any faster than a subsonic one.
Remember that in the last phases of the operational life of the SR 71 Blackbird, their payload was a high mach number drone.
Not quite. That was in the last phases of its development life, and the idea was scrapped because they could not get supersonic separation to work reliably, resulting in the loss of airframes and pilots during testing.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it means we either need backup power, or massive amounts of energy storage, here on Earth. Of course, the cost of that system would be absolutely dwarfed by the cost of getting the solar energy station set up on the Moon.
We can't ship a fab up to the space station let alone the moon anytime soon.
We can't ship tens of thousands of square kilometers of solar array up to the space station either.
These are just bulk unmanned launches. Since you're talking about decades of effort to build this thing, it doesn't really matter how long it takes to get there. Have an electric tug that relays back and forth between Earth and Lunar orbit. Then your launch vehicle only needs around an extra ~2km/s for landing, and a bit of reaction mass to refuel the tug.
Since you're actually looking at the projected surface area, and beyond a critical angle the panels will be reflective, the effective surface area is really more like 25% of the total surface area of the array.
Most reasonable plans for beamed microwave power have a receiving station encompassing several square miles, making it much easier to focus the beam, and resulting in relatively low beam intensity.
According to TFA, the materials would come from earth, so why go to extra effort to take them down to the lunar surface, halving their effectiveness?
That's just stupid. The lunar surface is covered in silicon, and has plenty of iron, aluminum, and magnesium. Ship a refinery and fab up to the Moon, and whatever trace dopants and alloys you need. Build your solar panels, the structure on which to mount them, and the infrastructure to connect them to, on site, using the power generated by it.
I've seen estimates of 1.2 mw per square km for solar
I wouldn't trust that estimate. That's all of 1.2W/m^2. Solar radiation at our average orbit is more than 1000x that. Silicon and GaAs panels would be 200-300W/m^2. Even thin film panels should be in the several tens of watts. Remember, there's no atmospheric dissipation, nor any issues with weather. All you have to worry about are eclipses, micrometeorite damage, and radiation damage. Better have enough storage capacity to hold you over during those eclipses.
The number one rule of writing exploit-free code is NEVER TRUST THE CLIENT. EVER. There should NEVER be ANYTHING a user can do or run on their machine which can give them an advantage or opportunity to cheat... if they can then YOU fucked up when you wrote the code.
In other words, all games must operate in a mainframe/terminal fashion, where the client is just a dumb viewer and all game code is running on a private server outside the user's control. Even then, you would still have to worry about applications running mechanical vision algorithms and guiding the mouse and keyboard inputs autonomously.
It was done with authorization. You authorized it when you agreed to the terms of use of a VAC-protected game, playing on VAC-protected servers.
The trouble with this is the same as trouble with things like IDS, it only works through obscurity. As an IDS protects against an attacker, anti-cheat protects against you, and the only way it is going to work is if you don't know what it is doing. If you knew how it operated, you could alter your actions to bypass its detection mechanisms, as has supposedly happened now that the behavior has become public.
I don't care what it is sending or not sending to Valve. It's still an unnecessary invasion of privacy. In fact, its so easy to circumvent that I have a hard time believing that he is even being honest about why they are looking at the DNS records to begin with. How hard is it to clear my history, browse in Incognito mode, or do all of my cheating on a separate machine or in a VM? Trivial.
It's not your web browser accessing cheat websites, it's your cheat software itself accessing its servers. Clearing your history or browsing in Incognito mode won't do anything. You cannot use a VM, since the cheat software must be run on the same machine as you are running the game (and VAC).
And in fact, it may incorrectly flag me as a potential cheater anyway. I have looked up exploit information for games. I did not look in order to cheat at the game, but because I kept running into people who were not being busted for cheating and I wanted to know how they were exploiting the game. I was looking for a better way to tell when someone was cheating, not to actually cheat myself.
Then it will not flag you as a potential cheater, since you were not running the cheat software to access the DNS entries in question. Further, it would never flag you as a potential anyway. This mechanism is only triggered after some other behavior has already flagged you as a potential cheater. This is a confirmation mechanism.
While the basic idea of a piece of software accessing and reporting this information, at least in Valve's public explanation of what they were doing, it was entirely in good faith.
It's more like an anti-theft service that when it thinks the laptop may have been stolen, it then turns on the camera to see who is using the laptop. Access to the DNS cache is only triggered by some other first-tier behavior.
Who ever said anything about 10Gb ethernet switches? First, this is long range communications where copper ethernet simply doesn't function. We're talking more expensive DSL or DOCSIS gear, or much more expensive PON gear. Second, 1TB/mo is only around 3Mbps. The average broadband internet connection these days is going to be many times that, regardless of whether they're using 1GB/mo or 1TB/mo.
Someone who uses 10GB a month should pay ten times as much as someone who uses 1GB a month
While I agree with you in principle, your pricing structure is way off. There is a physical infrastructure that must be maintained regardless of whether you're using 1GB/mo or 1TB/mo. Your proposal would require breaking out a separate network access fee, which would be the overwhelming bulk of the cost for someone only using 1GB/mo.
Do these people claiming allowing ISPs to charge providers even understand how the internet works? Providers buy bandwidth from one ISP. Consumers buy bandwidth from another ISP. Those ISPs then decide amongst themselves who has the more valuable network, and one ends up paying the other for access. If consumer ISPs think they deserve more for access to their customers, they charge their peers, and those peers in turn charge Netflix and their ilk more. Charging them directly would constitute triple dipping.
Trying to run a graphically intense game inside a virtual machine can only end in tears.
It's a double edged sword. While some users are going to be alienated, some users are going to try to figure out why they cannot play the content, and thus learn the issues surrounding licensing and the decision to use open (unchallenged) formats.
I thought the NWO was some professional wrestling event.
Well if tropical is anything between the tropics, namely from -23 to 23 degrees, and the arctic is from -90 to -67 degrees and 67 to 90 degrees, Sochi sitting at 43.5 degrees is nearly right in the middle, hence semi-tropic. Of course, that would also make it semi-arctic by that logic, which sounds like a pretty good place to hold Winter Olympics.
For what it's worth, industrial data buses in general implement no form of data security. They all rely on physical security. CAN just seems to be following the standard.
But we're talking about a couple hundred miles, not the thousand or more typical of cruise missiles. Hypersonic SA and AA missiles are often capable of similar range, if perhaps not at that low altitude.
Also ballistic hyper velocity missiles do not have the fuel tank you refer to.
Ballistic hypersonic missiles don't stay hypersonic unless undergoing re-entry. If you're deep in the atmosphere at a shallow slope, you bleed that velocity real fast unless you've got a motor.
People might react badly to being scorched by lasers from the sky, after all.
During time of war, when you're dealing with an inbound missile and multiple millions, if not billions, of dollars worth of equipment, there's a bit of "better you than me" attitude.
That's why the aircraft carrier has multiple forms of missile defense systems, and is surrounded by many different ships with more missile defense systems. You're not just attacking a carrier. You're attacking a carrier group, with upwards of a thousand anti-missile missiles of different types between them. The same would be said should they transition to LASER or kinetic defense systems.
You're already 10 miles down range by the time you've managed to jink a couple degrees. A hypersonic missile cannot accelerate laterally any faster than a subsonic one.
Remember that in the last phases of the operational life of the SR 71 Blackbird, their payload was a high mach number drone.
Not quite. That was in the last phases of its development life, and the idea was scrapped because they could not get supersonic separation to work reliably, resulting in the loss of airframes and pilots during testing.