The article didn't mention of any space based proposals. I've seen a group argue for a large "solar umbrella" to be placed at the Earth-Sun L1 lagrange point. While the L1 point is unstable, it is possible to make a craft that can stably orbit the L1 point. Just a relatively small umbrella (1-5 miles across) would be enough to block 10% of the incoming solar energy. It'd be expensive, but its doable. I wish I had a link.
I wonder if the North's government will set up fake UHF transmitters to duplicate the transmissions that North Koreans would have heard if the satellite was successfully launched?
do you remember when you turned 16 or 18? I was (and am still to some extent) a total moron. being given all of those rights/privileges/obligations all at once and I'm sure I'd not only get in trouble but cause serious damage.
I am all in favor of the right to drive and the right to drink occurring at different ages
I believe the thinking is that if the enemy destroys one of your stockpiles, then you still need to be able to kill every living thing on the planet to continue to act as a deterrent (plus a few extra to account for malfunctions).
Of course, then you might reason you need enough stockpiles that your enemy can't destroy all of your stockpiles, which means you need so many hidden stockpiles (each capable of destroying every living thing on the planet) that some will survive despite an all out attack.
This is why the anti-missile shield won't work. We can intercept a handful of incoming missiles (at enormous cost), but if flocks and flocks of missiles are fired at us we can't shoot them all down at once. The we have to go back to the nuclear stockpiles....
I'm just worried someday a nuke will accidentally be fired, accidentally detonate, accidentally be delivered/given to a terrorist group, etc...
That's what everyone said when wikipedia came out.
I'm a researcher, and I find that googling/wikipediaing my questions often helps me know if I'm looking in the right area. If I've conjured a sufficient amount of buzzwords about the topic, I'll get a good wikipedia page or mathworld.com page or something. I can then look at what THOSE pages reference and usually find links to some peer-reviewed sources.
Also, I've noticed a lot of my coworkers (myself included) will often try to learn more about a problem we're working on and through wikipedia/google find similar problems in several other fields. A lot of the time the other fields that have a similar problem as mine are so different than my field that I wouldn't have noticed the problem existed elsewhere without stumbling across it on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
The article didn't mention of any space based proposals. I've seen a group argue for a large "solar umbrella" to be placed at the Earth-Sun L1 lagrange point. While the L1 point is unstable, it is possible to make a craft that can stably orbit the L1 point. Just a relatively small umbrella (1-5 miles across) would be enough to block 10% of the incoming solar energy. It'd be expensive, but its doable. I wish I had a link.
A similar group came up with a results to show that 2% of incoming solar energy can be blocked with a *lot* of tiny umbrellas that might fit in a single large rocket (delta IV heavy): http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_sunshade_061111.html
I wonder if the North's government will set up fake UHF transmitters to duplicate the transmissions that North Koreans would have heard if the satellite was successfully launched?
At the thought of a nuclear war, are there any sources without a vested interest?
do you remember when you turned 16 or 18? I was (and am still to some extent) a total moron. being given all of those rights/privileges/obligations all at once and I'm sure I'd not only get in trouble but cause serious damage.
I am all in favor of the right to drive and the right to drink occurring at different ages
sci fi fans are (for the most part, me included) huge nerds.
maybe they know the majority of sci fi fans will just P2P, watch on Hulu, watch on their website, etc. more evidence of the death of tv?
I believe the thinking is that if the enemy destroys one of your stockpiles, then you still need to be able to kill every living thing on the planet to continue to act as a deterrent (plus a few extra to account for malfunctions).
Of course, then you might reason you need enough stockpiles that your enemy can't destroy all of your stockpiles, which means you need so many hidden stockpiles (each capable of destroying every living thing on the planet) that some will survive despite an all out attack.
This is why the anti-missile shield won't work. We can intercept a handful of incoming missiles (at enormous cost), but if flocks and flocks of missiles are fired at us we can't shoot them all down at once. The we have to go back to the nuclear stockpiles....
I'm just worried someday a nuke will accidentally be fired, accidentally detonate, accidentally be delivered/given to a terrorist group, etc...
That's what everyone said when wikipedia came out.
I'm a researcher, and I find that googling/wikipediaing my questions often helps me know if I'm looking in the right area. If I've conjured a sufficient amount of buzzwords about the topic, I'll get a good wikipedia page or mathworld.com page or something. I can then look at what THOSE pages reference and usually find links to some peer-reviewed sources.
Also, I've noticed a lot of my coworkers (myself included) will often try to learn more about a problem we're working on and through wikipedia/google find similar problems in several other fields. A lot of the time the other fields that have a similar problem as mine are so different than my field that I wouldn't have noticed the problem existed elsewhere without stumbling across it on the internet.