Ah yes... good point that I really should have clarified. I wasn't intending to prove that it is technologically realistic to travel this fast, more that it wouldn't break the major laws of physics (namely the laws of thermodynamics, which I believe "actually" traveling at the speed of light would violate.) Finding a way to maintain this acceleration would indeed be a huge feat of engineering on a scale likely orders of magnitude from what we can currently obtain. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it is impossible.
And for a little more clarification, by new branch of physics I am including wormhole travel, as there is nothing with the current set of theories that necessarily allows an object as big as a person to get through... I have seen no evidence that we could send information through one in such a way that it would arrive sooner than information sent via classical methods (I.E. speed of light via radio waves.)
While it initially appears that you would be traveling faster than the speed of light, you indeed are not... when you reach relativistic speeds space itself compresses, so from your perspective the distance traveled between two points is less than the distance as measured from a resting observer. End result your measured velocity is less than C. To the resting observer, you travel the larger distance, but time is dilated such that your velocity is lower than C. Since the apparent distance between the origin and the destination is decreased, the amount of time it takes light to make the same journey would be less than the amount of time it takes you. In fact, from your perspective light is still traveling... at the speed of light.
Now, to take the concept to the ultimate (but unreachable) conclusion: to reach such a velocity that an outside observer would record you as moving equal to the speed of light: To the traveler it would seem as if there was actually no distance traveled, and the journey took no time at all. What the traveler would observe is space and time folded between the origin and the destination... for a 10 light year journey, you would instantly travel to the destination, but 10 years later. The return trip would also be instantaneous, but 20 years would have elapsed at home since you have left. Thus, the speed of light is not violated. However, to cut your travel time to zero in a Newtonian framework, you would need to reach infinite speed in zero time, which would require infinite acceleration, which would in turn require infinite energy. That is impossible, so an object with a resting mass cannot travel at the speed of light (or beyond.) But you still have to take into account the fact that at relativistic speeds, space constricts while time dilates, allowing for what on the surface appears to be traveling faster than the speed of light, but actually is not.
I honestly am not convinced that we'd need any brand new branch of physics to send someone to a star 10 lightyears away. When you start accelerating to high speeds, time dilation comes for free with the package. I remember someone showing me the math a while ago, but I don't remember who it was so they may have been full of it, but anyways... for traveling large distances under constant acceleration you can pretty much use classic Newtonian physics from the point of view of the traveler, as reaching relativistic speeds causes space to constrict rather than time if you are the traveler rather than the stationary observer.
What does this mean for traveling interstellar distances? If you can carry enough reaction mass or somehow collect it on the way, simply accelerate at a comfortable rate until you are halfway to the destination, then turn around and begin deceleration at the same rate for the second half. working the numbers shows that accelerating at 9.8 meters per second per second will get you halfway to a destination 10 light years away in 2.2 years. 4.4 year one way trip, 8.8 year round trip. All with 1G of acceleration so you would have no need for exotic technology to simulate gravity to maintain health. There would physiologically be no need for sleep/stasis for the travelers. Stasis may, however, prove to be more energy efficient and psychologically easier than being cooped up in a spaceship for about 9 years.
Granted, the relativistic effects would need to be taken into account for plotting the course, as the destination planet will have been traveling through space for much more than 10 years. And when you get home your descendants will probably have died of old age.
My guess would be that a significant portion of that battery drain comes from bluetooth. My phone can go about a day and a half with normal use without recharging. When bluetooth is on, the battery drains to the point that the phone turns off in 3-4 hours with no use.
In particular, I was thinking they may have realized something about their argument which could be used in a judgment against them. Better to forfeit now than risk a retrial which could open the doors with court precedent in a ruling against the RIAA, endangering future legal action.
(Note the liberal use of indefinite articles... pure speculation)
Have fun with that... I personally am averse to experiencing 354 Gs of acceleration. As for myself, I prefer to take around a year to get up to that speed.
Alternatively, you could go with a Bios mandated memory wipe on startup. It won't prevent the hack of physically removing the chip and placing in a special device, for that you would need each memory chip to automatically zero itself on power-on (Doing this on the SIMM level wouldn't help if the attacker is determined enough to crack open the case.) For your average user this would be cost prohibitive, but if security is truly an issue this could be implemented.
It would probably require a specialized Bios and/or memory controller to run this ram as you would at least need to account for a pause while the memory clears itself. However, the time required for an embedded memory wipe would be smaller than a system executed memory wipe as you would theoretically not need to use standard communications channels to issue write commands to each bit.
Look at the release dates of the games in question. A better title would read "Does A Failing Economy Have An Adverse Effect On Sales Of Luxury Items?"
While that would be very nice for those few small sites that get hit, it would be copyright violation and get slashdot's pants sued off by anyone who makes money off of web hits.
Chernobyl... yes, big disaster. 3 mile island? Literally not an issue... the safety measures contained the problem. Study after study has not shown any increase in cancer or teratogenic effects. Basically you'd get a lower dose of radiation living near 3 mile island than you would living near a coal fired power plant.
FTA, the ~$1million is for building and testing six working prototypes. The design will then be added to a catalog the city uses, and they can then install them as they see appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes... good point that I really should have clarified. I wasn't intending to prove that it is technologically realistic to travel this fast, more that it wouldn't break the major laws of physics (namely the laws of thermodynamics, which I believe "actually" traveling at the speed of light would violate.) Finding a way to maintain this acceleration would indeed be a huge feat of engineering on a scale likely orders of magnitude from what we can currently obtain. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it is impossible.
And for a little more clarification, by new branch of physics I am including wormhole travel, as there is nothing with the current set of theories that necessarily allows an object as big as a person to get through... I have seen no evidence that we could send information through one in such a way that it would arrive sooner than information sent via classical methods (I.E. speed of light via radio waves.)
While it initially appears that you would be traveling faster than the speed of light, you indeed are not... when you reach relativistic speeds space itself compresses, so from your perspective the distance traveled between two points is less than the distance as measured from a resting observer. End result your measured velocity is less than C. To the resting observer, you travel the larger distance, but time is dilated such that your velocity is lower than C. Since the apparent distance between the origin and the destination is decreased, the amount of time it takes light to make the same journey would be less than the amount of time it takes you. In fact, from your perspective light is still traveling... at the speed of light.
Now, to take the concept to the ultimate (but unreachable) conclusion: to reach such a velocity that an outside observer would record you as moving equal to the speed of light: To the traveler it would seem as if there was actually no distance traveled, and the journey took no time at all. What the traveler would observe is space and time folded between the origin and the destination... for a 10 light year journey, you would instantly travel to the destination, but 10 years later. The return trip would also be instantaneous, but 20 years would have elapsed at home since you have left. Thus, the speed of light is not violated. However, to cut your travel time to zero in a Newtonian framework, you would need to reach infinite speed in zero time, which would require infinite acceleration, which would in turn require infinite energy. That is impossible, so an object with a resting mass cannot travel at the speed of light (or beyond.) But you still have to take into account the fact that at relativistic speeds, space constricts while time dilates, allowing for what on the surface appears to be traveling faster than the speed of light, but actually is not.
I honestly am not convinced that we'd need any brand new branch of physics to send someone to a star 10 lightyears away. When you start accelerating to high speeds, time dilation comes for free with the package. I remember someone showing me the math a while ago, but I don't remember who it was so they may have been full of it, but anyways... for traveling large distances under constant acceleration you can pretty much use classic Newtonian physics from the point of view of the traveler, as reaching relativistic speeds causes space to constrict rather than time if you are the traveler rather than the stationary observer.
What does this mean for traveling interstellar distances? If you can carry enough reaction mass or somehow collect it on the way, simply accelerate at a comfortable rate until you are halfway to the destination, then turn around and begin deceleration at the same rate for the second half. working the numbers shows that accelerating at 9.8 meters per second per second will get you halfway to a destination 10 light years away in 2.2 years. 4.4 year one way trip, 8.8 year round trip. All with 1G of acceleration so you would have no need for exotic technology to simulate gravity to maintain health. There would physiologically be no need for sleep/stasis for the travelers. Stasis may, however, prove to be more energy efficient and psychologically easier than being cooped up in a spaceship for about 9 years.
Granted, the relativistic effects would need to be taken into account for plotting the course, as the destination planet will have been traveling through space for much more than 10 years. And when you get home your descendants will probably have died of old age.
That's a car that receives instructions remotely, but makes up it's own mind on where to go.
My guess would be that a significant portion of that battery drain comes from bluetooth. My phone can go about a day and a half with normal use without recharging. When bluetooth is on, the battery drains to the point that the phone turns off in 3-4 hours with no use.
Err... replied to the wrong comment. This would be a counterargument to my comments grandparent, not parent.
And here is the counterargument. Warning: NSFH (Not Safe For the Hearing.)
You are thinking along the same lines as me...
In particular, I was thinking they may have realized something about their argument which could be used in a judgment against them. Better to forfeit now than risk a retrial which could open the doors with court precedent in a ruling against the RIAA, endangering future legal action. (Note the liberal use of indefinite articles... pure speculation)
That's actually not an error. Whiskey is perfectly good stuff... for turning into power to make real Whisky with.
Have fun with that... I personally am averse to experiencing 354 Gs of acceleration. As for myself, I prefer to take around a year to get up to that speed.
Well, we've already got Wallhack.
You just need to make the proper investment.
Alternatively, you could go with a Bios mandated memory wipe on startup. It won't prevent the hack of physically removing the chip and placing in a special device, for that you would need each memory chip to automatically zero itself on power-on (Doing this on the SIMM level wouldn't help if the attacker is determined enough to crack open the case.) For your average user this would be cost prohibitive, but if security is truly an issue this could be implemented.
It would probably require a specialized Bios and/or memory controller to run this ram as you would at least need to account for a pause while the memory clears itself. However, the time required for an embedded memory wipe would be smaller than a system executed memory wipe as you would theoretically not need to use standard communications channels to issue write commands to each bit.
Point well taken... video games are fairly inexpensive as far as luxuries go.
Look at the release dates of the games in question. A better title would read "Does A Failing Economy Have An Adverse Effect On Sales Of Luxury Items?"
While that would be very nice for those few small sites that get hit, it would be copyright violation and get slashdot's pants sued off by anyone who makes money off of web hits.
It's already starting to take off commercially
All that from your flying car, I assume?
But would you pay that $20 to see a Beatles cover band?
Chernobyl... yes, big disaster. 3 mile island? Literally not an issue... the safety measures contained the problem. Study after study has not shown any increase in cancer or teratogenic effects. Basically you'd get a lower dose of radiation living near 3 mile island than you would living near a coal fired power plant.
I disagree... people buying high and selling low is a great way to make money...
As long as you are the one buying low and selling high.
Back in my day, we didn't need no fancy wood to build our computers. Stone was all we needed. And we liked it.
FTA, the ~$1million is for building and testing six working prototypes. The design will then be added to a catalog the city uses, and they can then install them as they see appropriate.
Hmm... I wonder if a portable version of your idea could be devised? Nah... forget it. Wouldn't work.
It's obvious that sharks would be into cock rock.