It would be easy to slightly change the laser wavelength and optics (a few nm's perhaps) and the missile would absorb again.
No its not. It very hard and would require a complete refit of the optics... After rockets have already got through. If its easy to change the mirrors in the optics path, its easy to do on a rocket...
There are other reflection techniques that could work very well. They are R&D projects in their own right, but attacks and counters is what war technology is all about.
Off the top of my head I can think of 3 systems that could work well--or not depending on the details.
"Corner" reflectors. Not the big things used in surveying. But little ones that can be stuck to the surface and a lot higher quality than those reflective plastic strips. This sends a lot of the energy strait back and would force the use of optical isolation in a high power laser optics path. The reflection could also be bad enough to damage sensors.
Ablation. A surface that ablates in a controlled way that causes lots of absorption in the ablated material that then gets swept down stream.
A protective gas/smoke layer. This is similar to Ablation. But when an attack is detected a gas is bleed from the nose of the rocket --cause a similar effect to ablation. The gas/smoke gets heated up/reflects a heap of energy and is swept down stream.
Or a combination of the above. But even then there is a pretty strong asymmetry in cost. Its real cheap to launch 10 rockets at once compared to the cost of a plane with a laser.... And these simple counter measures my incress dwell time for critical damage enough to really make a big difference.
Lasers as the future weapon just don't seem to work as well per unit energy than a plain old boring, tried and true, rock throwing....(aka rail gun).
This is not universal. As i have already posted, here (Austria and its similar in the rest of eu) a 16 year has a lot of legal responsibilities and privileges as adults do. You can drink and go to pubs and clubs (till midnight but nobody checks). Recently the law was changed and now they can vote. But they can also get permanent criminal records from 14. If they do something stupid they get the full blow etc, parents are not blamed. Everyone *expects* them to be far more responsible that where i came from (NZ).
Also what the parents expect of their teens makes a big difference.
In the country I live in, 16 year olds can vote, drink and go clubbing. They can get permanent criminal records and can leave school or whatever. The schools don't need to notify the parents of squat and they can even write there own "absentee" notes for school if they choose to attend.
But they are still teenagers. Most still need parents to pay rent etc. So they are "dependents".
My Grandfather left school (after the war) at 14, and was living on his own at 16 and married at 18. His wife was 16.
Multinational corporations don't really care. Why? because even the most staunch believers in "we are all going to die global warming" camp change *nothing*. They are vomiting as much CO2 now as the did back in the day.
The reality is our society is so mired in exaggeration, misrepresentations, doublespeak, non-denial denials, irrelevant conclusions, marketing lies, cover your ass language and general bullshit that we, as a culture, have probably lost the ability or even the inclination to discriminate truth and lies.
Are you suggesting that this is somehow only recent?
Thats really only true with climate science... And thats what happens when it gets political. To any field of science really.
And another thing people seem to forget is that Scientists are just people too. They/We have our favorite theory's, we have axes that we like to grind, are sometimes quite desperate for funding etc. We use the "scientific" method far less than many think. We have all the same failings as every body else. Scientists are not "better" than anyone else.
Yet another thing people forget is that it really is part of scientists job to present the science in a way that others can get an idea of whats going on. Both what we really know and what we expect vers just how confident we are with the "hypothesis". But that failing is *not* limited to just climate stuff.
At any rate. Always question the guy at the front --scientist, priest or otherwise. The problems start when you are not permitted to be skeptical.
0.01ppm is not a lot. For just 1kg of he3 you would need to process 100 thousand tons of moon rocks/dust/whatever assuming 100% recovery rate. Even if He3 fusion was viable --it may well take more energy to extract the He3 in the first place.
If you can do He3 fusion you can do DD fusion. Which would be a far easier way of "breading" He3.
Not really. He4 gives about 1.063kg per m3 of lift at sea level. He3 also gives about 1.106kg of lift per m3. The mass of air that its displacing is the parameter that matters.
You will put every maid out there out of work! How dare you. What will they do for food. What about their children. For Gods sakes think of the children...
Which illustrates the point nicely. Only the rich could afford a maid in the first place. So with a house automation revolution, lower income groups get the benefits. Once the items become cheap enough of course, which is a practical certainty.
Yea, thats what they said with each "industrial" revolution.
The argument that a machine replacing someones job is bad just stinks of broken window fallacy's. Let machines do what machines do well. Let people do what people do well. If the only thing you can do is work like a machine, you are the one that needs to learn something new.
The bottom 50% have *never* been better off. When being poor means not having a [big] TV or cigarettes, you know we are doing better.
Oh --you mean in the USA? Never mind.....But that has nothing to do with technology.
I got a better idea. Send just the mind. Build a body when you get there. That way at least you got to choose to go on the trip....And the people at the other end want to be there....
It is trivial to prove that a function is one way. If the input is from a larger domain than the output. ie a^b=c is one way. given c I cannot recover a and b. Of course this is not a good function to use for other reasons....
If however the input is the same length then its a little harder...The only way we know how to do is the way this competition is doing it. Propose a "one way" function, others then try and break it. Otherwise you need a collision which in this context is a bad thing due to reduced randomness. ie f(a)=b and f(a')=b which a b and a' are the same bit length.
What rubbish. A good chuck of amateur astronomers are very "professional" in both training and practice. The professionals, ie the ones that get paid to do it full time, also work with the amateurs (often university graduate level education, its just not their day job) and do not feel minimized in any way.
I was under the impression that flue particulate matter (fine ash) had to be filtered from the stacks? Well at least they do it here (EU). This then gives you a coal ash disposal problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Even without cheap hydrocarbons. this has got to be a logistics wet dream. Carrier groups are hopelessly dependent on regular resupply.
I have always viewed C as syntax sugar for assembly.
It would be easy to slightly change the laser wavelength and optics (a few nm's perhaps) and the missile would absorb again.
No its not. It very hard and would require a complete refit of the optics... After rockets have already got through. If its easy to change the mirrors in the optics path, its easy to do on a rocket...
There are other reflection techniques that could work very well. They are R&D projects in their own right, but attacks and counters is what war technology is all about.
Off the top of my head I can think of 3 systems that could work well--or not depending on the details.
"Corner" reflectors. Not the big things used in surveying. But little ones that can be stuck to the surface and a lot higher quality than those reflective plastic strips. This sends a lot of the energy strait back and would force the use of optical isolation in a high power laser optics path. The reflection could also be bad enough to damage sensors.
Ablation. A surface that ablates in a controlled way that causes lots of absorption in the ablated material that then gets swept down stream.
A protective gas/smoke layer. This is similar to Ablation. But when an attack is detected a gas is bleed from the nose of the rocket --cause a similar effect to ablation. The gas/smoke gets heated up/reflects a heap of energy and is swept down stream.
Or a combination of the above. But even then there is a pretty strong asymmetry in cost. Its real cheap to launch 10 rockets at once compared to the cost of a plane with a laser.... And these simple counter measures my incress dwell time for critical damage enough to really make a big difference.
Lasers as the future weapon just don't seem to work as well per unit energy than a plain old boring, tried and true, rock throwing....(aka rail gun).
Last time i checked FELs are not flight weight. They are the size *and* weight of a large building.
Can you copyright an API such that a black box implementation can not be made without violating the copyright?
Generally No. You can't copyright ideas etc. Only a specific implementation of an idea.
The swinging machete and police that came out to arrest her are not "voices" in my head. It really is a true story...
This is not universal. As i have already posted, here (Austria and its similar in the rest of eu) a 16 year has a lot of legal responsibilities and privileges as adults do. You can drink and go to pubs and clubs (till midnight but nobody checks). Recently the law was changed and now they can vote. But they can also get permanent criminal records from 14. If they do something stupid they get the full blow etc, parents are not blamed. Everyone *expects* them to be far more responsible that where i came from (NZ).
Also what the parents expect of their teens makes a big difference.
In the country I live in, 16 year olds can vote, drink and go clubbing. They can get permanent criminal records and can leave school or whatever. The schools don't need to notify the parents of squat and they can even write there own "absentee" notes for school if they choose to attend.
But they are still teenagers. Most still need parents to pay rent etc. So they are "dependents".
My Grandfather left school (after the war) at 14, and was living on his own at 16 and married at 18. His wife was 16.
Things *are* different from 50 years ago.
because it takes years and does not stop current litigation.
Multinational corporations don't really care. Why? because even the most staunch believers in "we are all going to die global warming" camp change *nothing*. They are vomiting as much CO2 now as the did back in the day.
The reality is our society is so mired in exaggeration, misrepresentations, doublespeak, non-denial denials, irrelevant conclusions, marketing lies, cover your ass language and general bullshit that we, as a culture, have probably lost the ability or even the inclination to discriminate truth and lies.
Are you suggesting that this is somehow only recent?
Its the way its always been.
My schizophrenic mother in law tried to kill me!
Thats all i needed to know.
and its lawyers for the win.
Thats really only true with climate science... And thats what happens when it gets political. To any field of science really.
And another thing people seem to forget is that Scientists are just people too. They/We have our favorite theory's, we have axes that we like to grind, are sometimes quite desperate for funding etc. We use the "scientific" method far less than many think. We have all the same failings as every body else. Scientists are not "better" than anyone else.
Yet another thing people forget is that it really is part of scientists job to present the science in a way that others can get an idea of whats going on. Both what we really know and what we expect vers just how confident we are with the "hypothesis". But that failing is *not* limited to just climate stuff.
At any rate. Always question the guy at the front --scientist, priest or otherwise. The problems start when you are not permitted to be skeptical.
0.01ppm is not a lot. For just 1kg of he3 you would need to process 100 thousand tons of moon rocks/dust/whatever assuming 100% recovery rate. Even if He3 fusion was viable --it may well take more energy to extract the He3 in the first place.
If you can do He3 fusion you can do DD fusion. Which would be a far easier way of "breading" He3.
Not really. He4 gives about 1.063kg per m3 of lift at sea level. He3 also gives about 1.106kg of lift per m3. The mass of air that its displacing is the parameter that matters.
You can read it here. But if you don't live in Australia then please ignore that link...
However I never liked that book--its was boring and the main character is a total sap.
..a whole section of the /. population would be out of work.
To coin a phrase. They would have an obsolete business model. I'm sure you know how the rest goes.
You will put every maid out there out of work! How dare you. What will they do for food. What about their children. For Gods sakes think of the children...
Which illustrates the point nicely. Only the rich could afford a maid in the first place. So with a house automation revolution, lower income groups get the benefits. Once the items become cheap enough of course, which is a practical certainty.
Yea, thats what they said with each "industrial" revolution.
The argument that a machine replacing someones job is bad just stinks of broken window fallacy's. Let machines do what machines do well. Let people do what people do well. If the only thing you can do is work like a machine, you are the one that needs to learn something new.
The bottom 50% have *never* been better off. When being poor means not having a [big] TV or cigarettes, you know we are doing better.
Oh --you mean in the USA? Never mind.....But that has nothing to do with technology.
I got a better idea. Send just the mind. Build a body when you get there. That way at least you got to choose to go on the trip....And the people at the other end want to be there....
It is trivial to prove that a function is one way. If the input is from a larger domain than the output. ie a^b=c is one way. given c I cannot recover a and b. Of course this is not a good function to use for other reasons....
If however the input is the same length then its a little harder...The only way we know how to do is the way this competition is doing it. Propose a "one way" function, others then try and break it. Otherwise you need a collision which in this context is a bad thing due to reduced randomness. ie f(a)=b and f(a')=b which a b and a' are the same bit length.
What rubbish. A good chuck of amateur astronomers are very "professional" in both training and practice. The professionals, ie the ones that get paid to do it full time, also work with the amateurs (often university graduate level education, its just not their day job) and do not feel minimized in any way.
I was under the impression that flue particulate matter (fine ash) had to be filtered from the stacks? Well at least they do it here (EU). This then gives you a coal ash disposal problem.