Why not? Use stronger electromagnets near the base to lift weights.
It will be preferable to break packages up into smaller chunks, though.
I can't imagine the kind of liability suite you would face for wiping out a small town.
The problem isn't the station at the top coming down and wiping out a small town. The problem is the whole blasted cable coming down and wrapping itself around the equator a couple times.
Lifting the people isn't terribly difficult: just use a magnetic propulsion system, which has the added benefit of generating electricity when run in reverse as a magnetic braking system when they come back down.
The hard part will be lifting the cable up in the first place. That's the only problem I haven't heard solved yet.
Now the problem is just getting a process that can get us from growing 4
mm in length to 47,000 km
No, we just need to make 4mm nanotubes and weave them together into a 47,000km cable. Nanotubes are currently in micro-meter lengths; 4 millimeter nanotubes will be cohesive enough to provide a strong weave.
Money watermarks exist as an easy way for someone to check authenticity (look for the picture under the right lighting) without adversely affecting the primary image; the watermark is largely imperceptible unless you know what to look for. Likewise, DVD watermarks add something to the image that will normally not be noticed unless you know what to look for (and may need additional technology to observe). Like watermarks on money or checks, they're hard to duplicate and either don't appear in copies (new $ bills), or grotesquely stand out in copies (many copied checks scream "VOID"); new DVD players would look for "watermarks".
I wish to point out unless they have the DVD disc manually inserted into a DVD player by a MPAA representative that each form of copy protection they try will not work in the long run.
There are a number of small companies building big video projectors (durn things make me think "light cannons") for use in digital cinema. These projectors, at around $100,000 each, can support the added expense of an encrypted input - and the customers (movie studios & theaters) are willing to pay that expense to protect the pure data stream. That realm can/will pay for initial deployment, and it will trickle down to the rest of us.
Too true. When on tech support, I was the PC guru...and spent lots of time teaching a political history major how to provide tech support...and when cutbacks came, guess which of us was kept?
Also, I called Microsoft's paid tech support line to solve a fairly common Win98 problem - the "solution" given was to format the whole drive (nuking 2GB of stuff) and reinstall, when the real solution was to copy one file.
Some wife called tech support complaining that her web browser was getting pornographic: the "location" drop-down menu was full of porn-site addresses. The tech guy explained that those only appear if the user has typed them in before. Having a clue, she figured it out and very politely hung up...
Good point. If it is copyrighted, then the gov't has recognized that it is expressive speech. Obvious next step then is for someone to copyright DeCSS (or a derivative thereof), thus obtaining gov't recognition that it is indeed expressive speech.
Recall the fad of printing an RSA algorithm on a t-shirt in 4 lines of PERL. While the program was entirely useable, it was mostly printed & distributed to express opposition to government policy, by showing how simple the software is, by distributing it so far and wide that it could not be suppressed, by making the freedom of encryption available to all, and by expressing a rebelling-for-freedom attitude.
It's as if they'd never heard of the separation of the church and state...
That phrase is nowhere in the Constitution, and does not mean the same as what is said: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Let's continue the logic:
There is no difference between a normal human and a cloned human, other than duplicating the 0.1% of DNA that is often different between people (the rest is always the same). A clone is merely a little more the "same" than most people.
Why, then, should clones be subject to treatment that would be intolerable if done to other people?
There's no indication so far that we can create "cloned" organs unconnected from the rest of a body. The only conceivable way would be morally no different from conceiving a child and suppressing growth of other body parts, i.e. intentionally causing grotesque deformations in children.
How is making and using a brainless clone morally any different from making and using a brainless human? The only difference is the genetic information, which is 99+% the same anyway.
I want clones. I wanna grow spare hearts in a vat. I wanna have a
brainless clone in a tube in case I blow out my liver drinking whiskey.
Too many people don't realize that there is no difference (other than being genetically identical to someone else) between a normal human and a cloned human - both are people. "Spare hearts in a vat" or a "brainless clone in a tube" are no different than conceiving a child the normal way and abusing it for said purposes; a clone merely gives you a genetic match.
There is no basis for the widespread concept that clones are monsters to be feared or used for our selfish purposes.
I have a set, but it stays in the box because there's nothing worth using them for. Magic Carpet II was the last game with decent support. Descent supported the head tracker a bit too much, requiring the player to do physical summersaults fairly often.
I've long expected i-Glasses head-tracking support in Quake *, and am surprised it never happened (a few faltering attempts - one's head is not a joystick).
When will there be head-tracker support for Quake III? particularly for i-Glasses? I've been baffled that for all the attention given to quake, and the simplicity of the i-Glasses head-tracker, there is no link between the two. It's a lot cheaper than a CAVE.
Good catch. Still, that's more an obscure point of law than a social assumption. By adding (o), people (seeking official confirmation of anything) will assusme that if it's not marked (o) and you copy it you must be breaking a law. This plays into the general ignorance of law. Dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
A related article posted somewhere a couple days ago detailed that 4mm nanotubes would be enough. Just passing on what the nanotube manufacturer says.
Even when you're just partway up you could jump off the elevator and enter a lower orbit via a horizontal bump from small rocket engines.
Gee, they've solved THAT problem with airplanes and rockets, right? Airtight pressurized cabins? ever heard of those?
Why not? Use stronger electromagnets near the base to lift weights.
It will be preferable to break packages up into smaller chunks, though.
I can't imagine the kind of liability suite you would face for wiping out a small town.
The problem isn't the station at the top coming down and wiping out a small town. The problem is the whole blasted cable coming down and wrapping itself around the equator a couple times.
No elevator cable, use magnetics instead. Electromagnets evenly spaced along the way just have to lift the elevator a few inches.
The hard part will be lifting the cable up in the first place. That's the only problem I haven't heard solved yet.
No, we just need to make 4mm nanotubes and weave them together into a 47,000km cable. Nanotubes are currently in micro-meter lengths; 4 millimeter nanotubes will be cohesive enough to provide a strong weave.
Money watermarks exist as an easy way for someone to check authenticity (look for the picture under the right lighting) without adversely affecting the primary image; the watermark is largely imperceptible unless you know what to look for. Likewise, DVD watermarks add something to the image that will normally not be noticed unless you know what to look for (and may need additional technology to observe). Like watermarks on money or checks, they're hard to duplicate and either don't appear in copies (new $ bills), or grotesquely stand out in copies (many copied checks scream "VOID"); new DVD players would look for "watermarks".
And even that can be overcome. One word: bribery
There are a number of small companies building big video projectors (durn things make me think "light cannons") for use in digital cinema. These projectors, at around $100,000 each, can support the added expense of an encrypted input - and the customers (movie studios & theaters) are willing to pay that expense to protect the pure data stream. That realm can/will pay for initial deployment, and it will trickle down to the rest of us.
Considering the context of extra fingers, palm replacements, and Claudia Schiffer, that's a rather Freudian typo!
Also, I called Microsoft's paid tech support line to solve a fairly common Win98 problem - the "solution" given was to format the whole drive (nuking 2GB of stuff) and reinstall, when the real solution was to copy one file.
Some wife called tech support complaining that her web browser was getting pornographic: the "location" drop-down menu was full of porn-site addresses. The tech guy explained that those only appear if the user has typed them in before. Having a clue, she figured it out and very politely hung up...
Me: "Type 'dir a:'"
lUser: "Ok...D-I-R-S-P-A-C-E-A...what's a colon?"
Once I heard "S" I knew what was coming, and soon found there was no way to get them to stop typing until they got to "what's a colon?"
Good point. If it is copyrighted, then the gov't has recognized that it is expressive speech. Obvious next step then is for someone to copyright DeCSS (or a derivative thereof), thus obtaining gov't recognition that it is indeed expressive speech.
That phrase is nowhere in the Constitution, and does not mean the same as what is said: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Let's continue the logic:
There is no difference between a normal human and a cloned human, other than duplicating the 0.1% of DNA that is often different between people (the rest is always the same). A clone is merely a little more the "same" than most people.
Why, then, should clones be subject to treatment that would be intolerable if done to other people?
There's no indication so far that we can create "cloned" organs unconnected from the rest of a body. The only conceivable way would be morally no different from conceiving a child and suppressing growth of other body parts, i.e. intentionally causing grotesque deformations in children.
All people's genetic info is 99+% the same anyway; why does pushing duplication to 100% suddenly do away with any personal rights?
How is making and using a brainless clone morally any different from making and using a brainless human? The only difference is the genetic information, which is 99+% the same anyway.
Too many people don't realize that there is no difference (other than being genetically identical to someone else) between a normal human and a cloned human - both are people. "Spare hearts in a vat" or a "brainless clone in a tube" are no different than conceiving a child the normal way and abusing it for said purposes; a clone merely gives you a genetic match.
There is no basis for the widespread concept that clones are monsters to be feared or used for our selfish purposes.
I've long expected i-Glasses head-tracking support in Quake *, and am surprised it never happened (a few faltering attempts - one's head is not a joystick).