What a pile of crap. If your hard work is contributing to GPL/BSD/LGLP or other OS licensed code. Then you have donated your time period. If you don't want people to use it without paying for it, then don't work on those kinds of projects.
Next you'll be complaining about all the freeloaders at the local city mission that won't pay for your hard work.
The cumulative errors everyone is going on about here are far far less than most think with modern INS systems. There are really really accurate even over quite long extended time frames. They are so accurate that to get more accurate you need very accurate gravity maps of the planet to improve them at all.
How accurate, well that is classified. But you can look up what mil spec INS gyros and accelerometers are. Assuming strap down systems, its on the order of 1 meter per day for aircraft type systems with a perfect gravity map.
Modern INS are accurate for far longer than any flight. They are expensive however even for the military, and there is the encrypted military band GPS.
We can run some numbers of course. Lets assume uber magic detectors 20lty away such that they can detect a photon per second and distinguish this from the background. Assume a collecting area of 10000m^2 and we just assume its a 1GHz signal. So that is 6.6x10^-25 J per photon and we need 1 photon per 10000m^2. At 20lty year the area of the sphere is 4.5x10^35 m^2 so we need 4.5x10^31 photons for a isotropic distribution. Or about 30MW. That is a lot of power to be leaking out into space. Of course you can't have such a magic detector either (the received single is 6.6x10^-25 Watts). Not sure there was ever a time we let enough power leak into space....
Got a citation for that... One where a 3rd party has in fact *measured* the dose, and not some manufactures claims that we are not allowed to test. (for the backscatter machines)
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Look up the collision rates for the LHC. All these other people you seem to think are idiots are in fact not as stupid as you seem to think. You are also not as smart as you think you are either.
No, we have people who are just statistics people, who come from a statistics department, that do nothing but statistics and devlop new methods. You also clearly don't understand the fundamentals of particle physics either. Even with a *perfect* detector, you only get to observe the decay jets produced by the created particles. These are 100% stochastic, as in "God does play dice". You only get to indirectly observe the distribution of primary particles produced in a collisions from these jets. Which are all very similar. You cannot get anywhere without a lot of observations even with perfect detectors. This is what the standard model predicts, its what we obverse.
We in the EU are smart enough to accept US dollars. The fact the European is in the name does not put anyone off. The Fact is the US does/has been a fairly large contributor financially to the LHC effort.
You don't understand the problem. You can't know if you saw a single Higgs particle from a single collision. You need to see many many of them then look at the statistics of the jets produced. If you see a single higgs every 1000 collisions for example this will skew the jets "distributions", but you have no power to detect that without many millions of collisions, not matter how advanced the statistics. In particle physics very advanced statistics is used. Why would you think they don't? Its a multidisciplinary field.
A high energy particle is not a Higgs, it will only produce a higgs (with a lifetime on the order of 10^-20 sec) with a fairly low probability.
This would such a useless weapon compared to just about anything else. About the only thing it could do is kill everyone on the ship/whatever with cancer in a single shot.
You don't get the brightness you need for the statistics. You would need to wait millions of years to detect the highs particle for example. Not all that practical.
Why is it so important to make a name for yourself? Why should the government be funding that? Fund the science, to hell with popularity contests. Yes i am a scientist.
Fusion will likely be a major step forward but not without issues. We can already state with a high level of confidence that at a minimum it will leave super hot containment vessels behind to dispose of every so often.
Why can't people at least look something up BEFORE going all BS truthiness everywhere. It is uninformed FUD period. Activation waste is 100 and 1000 of times easier and less "hot" that spent fuel nuclear waste by every conceivable measure. It is *low* grade waste and most of the activity decays on the order of hours and days. With proper material choice, which is much easier with fusion since we don't have neutron economy to worry about, a few years can leave everything down close to safe levels (by some calculations). Even with very poor choices its still a "20 year problem" and even then the activity is very low, you don't need to do much to keep safe and disposal is easy.
Super hot is for Fission waste and activation products from Uranium (actinides).
The nice thing about/dev/random is that when you do add hardware or when hardware random numbers become standard, then everything that needs is already using it.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing You don't need to get close.
And lets not forget that getting a 2.4 meter mirror to moon orbit is something we can't do right now.
And it makes sense, why would someone not want to join a site where all your friends are?
You mean they don't use email, phones or have well, or you know, have a real physical presence that you can meet with at the local coffee shop?
Seriously. Some of us don't need facebook to have friends.
I'm in Austria. My kids are in my basement.
What a pile of crap. If your hard work is contributing to GPL/BSD/LGLP or other OS licensed code. Then you have donated your time period. If you don't want people to use it without paying for it, then don't work on those kinds of projects.
Next you'll be complaining about all the freeloaders at the local city mission that won't pay for your hard work.
The cumulative errors everyone is going on about here are far far less than most think with modern INS systems. There are really really accurate even over quite long extended time frames. They are so accurate that to get more accurate you need very accurate gravity maps of the planet to improve them at all.
How accurate, well that is classified. But you can look up what mil spec INS gyros and accelerometers are. Assuming strap down systems, its on the order of 1 meter per day for aircraft type systems with a perfect gravity map.
Modern INS are accurate for far longer than any flight. They are expensive however even for the military, and there is the encrypted military band GPS.
We can run some numbers of course. Lets assume uber magic detectors 20lty away such that they can detect a photon per second and distinguish this from the background. Assume a collecting area of 10000m^2 and we just assume its a 1GHz signal. So that is 6.6x10^-25 J per photon and we need 1 photon per 10000m^2. At 20lty year the area of the sphere is 4.5x10^35 m^2 so we need 4.5x10^31 photons for a isotropic distribution. Or about 30MW. That is a lot of power to be leaking out into space. Of course you can't have such a magic detector either (the received single is 6.6x10^-25 Watts). Not sure there was ever a time we let enough power leak into space....
Following are surveys of checked and carry-on baggage screening equipment:â..
Not backscatter machines.
Got a citation for that... One where a 3rd party has in fact *measured* the dose, and not some manufactures claims that we are not allowed to test. (for the backscatter machines)
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Look up the collision rates for the LHC. All these other people you seem to think are idiots are in fact not as stupid as you seem to think. You are also not as smart as you think you are either.
Two words: Pump and Dump. Not the first time either.
....
1. Buy bitcoins
2. Get a positive spin story about bitcoins on Forbes. Easy if you the one that gets to write it.
3.
4. Sell bitcoins.
5. Profit.
No, we have people who are just statistics people, who come from a statistics department, that do nothing but statistics and devlop new methods. You also clearly don't understand the fundamentals of particle physics either. Even with a *perfect* detector, you only get to observe the decay jets produced by the created particles. These are 100% stochastic, as in "God does play dice". You only get to indirectly observe the distribution of primary particles produced in a collisions from these jets. Which are all very similar. You cannot get anywhere without a lot of observations even with perfect detectors. This is what the standard model predicts, its what we obverse.
I find the same thing with Nature and Science. Some Good, some trash. Hell one of them even published a Homeopathy paper. It was later retracted.
We in the EU are smart enough to accept US dollars. The fact the European is in the name does not put anyone off. The Fact is the US does/has been a fairly large contributor financially to the LHC effort.
You don't understand the problem. You can't know if you saw a single Higgs particle from a single collision. You need to see many many of them then look at the statistics of the jets produced. If you see a single higgs every 1000 collisions for example this will skew the jets "distributions", but you have no power to detect that without many millions of collisions, not matter how advanced the statistics. In particle physics very advanced statistics is used. Why would you think they don't? Its a multidisciplinary field.
A high energy particle is not a Higgs, it will only produce a higgs (with a lifetime on the order of 10^-20 sec) with a fairly low probability.
The US funds CERN, in particular the LHC. The give quite a bit in fact.
This would such a useless weapon compared to just about anything else. About the only thing it could do is kill everyone on the ship/whatever with cancer in a single shot.
You don't get the brightness you need for the statistics. You would need to wait millions of years to detect the highs particle for example. Not all that practical.
Why is it so important to make a name for yourself? Why should the government be funding that? Fund the science, to hell with popularity contests. Yes i am a scientist.
Fusion will likely be a major step forward but not without issues. We can already state with a high level of confidence that at a minimum it will leave super hot containment vessels behind to dispose of every so often.
Why can't people at least look something up BEFORE going all BS truthiness everywhere. It is uninformed FUD period. Activation waste is 100 and 1000 of times easier and less "hot" that spent fuel nuclear waste by every conceivable measure. It is *low* grade waste and most of the activity decays on the order of hours and days. With proper material choice, which is much easier with fusion since we don't have neutron economy to worry about, a few years can leave everything down close to safe levels (by some calculations). Even with very poor choices its still a "20 year problem" and even then the activity is very low, you don't need to do much to keep safe and disposal is easy.
Super hot is for Fission waste and activation products from Uranium (actinides).
The nice thing about /dev/random is that when you do add hardware or when hardware random numbers become standard, then everything that needs is already using it.
No. Quake, doom etc seen the full game state each "frame". That is why wall hacks work.
Its not the "God believers" that keep bring God into /. discussions on science.
I completely agree. Turns out good scientist are typically awful politicians and not too good at PR as it turns out.