Yes it probably would work at least as good. But the OP reasoned that cooperation would be the best and only way. The Cold War wasn't really about cooperation now, was it? He reasoned that greed was preventing true space development, while greed (a common cause for war) usually spurs development. Again: it's not perfect, but it really works.
It may be that this need for war has ceased because the corporations and their competition have replaced it but the big corporations seem to be interested in war, since it can be very profitable.
I will not care then, because I would probably be unable to (or I'd be in hell and have other things on my mind). I do care now that my death will not reveal things that would harm them, in any way. They would already have to cope with the hangover of the party triggered by my demise.
The best protection would be to prevent the causing of these things as much as possible, although this can be hard for some.
The problem with that sentiment is that the wars have actually helped technology evolve. China was advancing faster for a long time, until a large enough piece of land was covered by it that real wars became uncommon. In Europe we continued trying to wipe each other out and it caused a lot of technological improvements. Competing countries and corporations advance technology a lot faster compared to monopolies and true world powers. The space race was sped up by the arms race between the USA and the USSR. Both just wanted to prove they were better. War may be a costly way to advance technology and not a nice one, but it is an very effective one. I would also prefer global peace as I do not think it's worth the suffering, but it would most probably hamper advancement, not speed it up.
Some people actually care for the feelings and reputation of their loved ones. The question whether I am alive when they become hurt or have their reputation damaged would be irrelevant.
Of course this would not be a problem for me: I do not have a transexual bearded midget fettish. I assure you I do not. Why don't you believe me? Those files are not mine! Who put them there?
I had 2 dogs: Inoe (Golden Retriever) would stay awake all night to detect if someone was there, but was mentally incapable of telling reliably if it was a friend or a foe. Inca (a couple of sheperd types and a Berner Senner mixed into one) would stay awake most of the day because then she get the most attention. If someone came around the back Inoe would start barking (happens during my sleep once a year at max) and wake Inca. Inca then would decide if it was a friend (and suitable to suck up to for some attention) or run straight at it wile barking loudly. Inca and her mother once chased away an intruder. We never heard a friend complaining he was chased away (nor do we expect friends to turn up at 0300) , so we presume the intruder was not legit.
I do live in a low crime rural area where dogs are very common (I even think the average is 2 dogs per house). My dogs do not bark if no one comes around the back, and if they did I do not think my neighbors would complain much: there are some pretty noisy dogs around.
True, an unstretchable balloon would not collapse in microgravity. The air would leave the balloon, but the balloon would almost keep it shape.
The pressure required to inflate it was not part of the reason I was contradicting. It was an addition, a separate reason, and one I agree with. One could even carry a little extra pressurized air to keep some air in the balloon for as long as possible, in order to shave a month off the time the bullet-like paint fleck needs to get low enough to burn in the atmosphere.
Yes, of course. It uses it's wings to turn in the vacuum of space! [/sacrasm]
Without means of propulsion you cannot orient yourself in space. Even the small rockets required to keep an antenna dish directed at earth are a means of propulsion. They are balanced, so they only provide rotation, but they could probably be fired separately. The small thrust provided by these could be used to hasten the re-entry a bit. However the companies usually prefer to use up the fuel in order to delay the re-entry and keep the sat working for a couple of extra years (that's the timescale involved).
Actually: GPS always results in two locations: one where you are and one as far from the satellite's orbit as you are, but in the other direction. It always finds a "space location". However the receiver assumes you are on the surface of the blue ball, so it ignores the other coordinates. If you told it to assume you are at the other location you would get the correct result (in this case). The only place where this would not work is in a lower orbit as where the GPS satellites are (since the receiver would be unable to determine witch one it is), but these orbits are already declining quite fast, since they are very low (because the receiver antennae have to be small).
With no pressure on the outside of the balloon it would deflate very slowly.
So you are saying that if you would inflate a balloon on earth, bring it into space and make a controlled leak (so it wouldn't burst) it would deflate more slowly since the pressure is lower?
To state it oversimplified: No.
A bit of a longer answer: No, quite the reverse.
An even longer answer: The flow of air is directly proportional to the air pressure differential (assuming the holesize stays the same). So when you lower the outside pressure and the inside pressure remains the flow of air would increase. This would cause the balloon to deflate faster.
And what is the difference there with a car going faster in the other lane, or even at the same speed? Do you crash into those? You already have to look in your rear view mirror before switching lanes. I would wait to switch lanes if I saw that thing coming and the bus company would probably sue the hell out of you if you didn't (and crashed into the bus).
Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't like to see one in the Netherlands before it was well tested, but it seems they think they have Chinese test subjects enough...
Em, if you look at the middle-right lanes in the picture you can see some bars above the road. If someone drives a big rig they will probably get into serious trouble before the bus passes them. I can assume this is by design: the big rigs should use only the outer lanes. In most countries this is considered normal: slow traffic on the outside lanes, fast traffic on the inside lanes. The inside lanes are only used for passing slow traffic and you are usually required to go back to the outer lane when possible (although many people don't). The penalty (in NL) can be EUR 90. People are not allowed to pass on the right side (passing is only allowed on the left side) and can cost EUR 160.
Most countries do not abide by the rule "keep speed keep lane"
Yes a lot of knowledge has been lost, but even most civilization destroying events (not species destroying) would probably not cause that nowadays. There is a lot of data (Wikipedia for example) on many geospaced backups. These would be found within 100 years and people would start to figure out what the lost bytes were. It would give the new civilization a big jump in technology. I even saw a way to make an offline dump portable: http://www.instructables.com/id/Wikipedia-in-your-pocket/ so the technology to read it would be available as well (assuming they have some form of electricity and it still works).
If they managed to get a yeast to 22% then the yeast will not be very good in other properties: taste for example. A good yeast adds about 10 % taste to your beer.
It does this mostly by means of so called esthers: easily evaporating strong smelling organic componds. These esthers give a lot of details to the taste of the beer, like fruty. The malt can't provide for these, because it is heated above 100 degrees C for about two hours to lose DMS. The hopps provide some of them, but most of the hopps are also heated to 373 K for a while.There are usually some hopps added at the end of cooking for this reason (or they use dry hopping).
This however is not a beer in my book. It is fortified and may have retained some properties of beer, but the process of increasing the alcohol % to something beyond what the yeast can do is removing the classification of "Beer" in my book.
I would be interested however. How would a beer like substance of 55% taste? The price is a bit steep: If I wanted to spend so much on booze I'd get some decent islay, so I'd pretty much know it would be very good.
I'd say it has something to do with the fact that the missile is directed at you, so hitting the side would require some kind of horizontal bend in the trajectory (assuming the missile takes the most efficient route and the speed of the ship is irrelevant). This seems unfeasible to me.
Note: I do not have any knowledge in this field beyond my basic logical reasoning and some highschool physics
Slashdot Mirror
Cant see them: they are to far away.
They have seriously performed above and beyond the call of duty.
Yes it probably would work at least as good. But the OP reasoned that cooperation would be the best and only way. The Cold War wasn't really about cooperation now, was it? He reasoned that greed was preventing true space development, while greed (a common cause for war) usually spurs development. Again: it's not perfect, but it really works.
It may be that this need for war has ceased because the corporations and their competition have replaced it but the big corporations seem to be interested in war, since it can be very profitable.
I will not care then, because I would probably be unable to (or I'd be in hell and have other things on my mind). I do care now that my death will not reveal things that would harm them, in any way. They would already have to cope with the hangover of the party triggered by my demise.
The best protection would be to prevent the causing of these things as much as possible, although this can be hard for some.
The problem with that sentiment is that the wars have actually helped technology evolve. China was advancing faster for a long time, until a large enough piece of land was covered by it that real wars became uncommon. In Europe we continued trying to wipe each other out and it caused a lot of technological improvements. Competing countries and corporations advance technology a lot faster compared to monopolies and true world powers.
The space race was sped up by the arms race between the USA and the USSR. Both just wanted to prove they were better.
War may be a costly way to advance technology and not a nice one, but it is an very effective one.
I would also prefer global peace as I do not think it's worth the suffering, but it would most probably hamper advancement, not speed it up.
Do it twice to be extra secure!
Some people actually care for the feelings and reputation of their loved ones. The question whether I am alive when they become hurt or have their reputation damaged would be irrelevant.
Of course this would not be a problem for me: I do not have a transexual bearded midget fettish. I assure you I do not. Why don't you believe me? Those files are not mine! Who put them there?
I stand corrected. I did mean orient, but I was wrong.
This actually looks feasible.
I had 2 dogs: Inoe (Golden Retriever) would stay awake all night to detect if someone was there, but was mentally incapable of telling reliably if it was a friend or a foe. Inca (a couple of sheperd types and a Berner Senner mixed into one) would stay awake most of the day because then she get the most attention. If someone came around the back Inoe would start barking (happens during my sleep once a year at max) and wake Inca. Inca then would decide if it was a friend (and suitable to suck up to for some attention) or run straight at it wile barking loudly. Inca and her mother once chased away an intruder. We never heard a friend complaining he was chased away (nor do we expect friends to turn up at 0300) , so we presume the intruder was not legit.
I do live in a low crime rural area where dogs are very common (I even think the average is 2 dogs per house). My dogs do not bark if no one comes around the back, and if they did I do not think my neighbors would complain much: there are some pretty noisy dogs around.
True, an unstretchable balloon would not collapse in microgravity. The air would leave the balloon, but the balloon would almost keep it shape.
The pressure required to inflate it was not part of the reason I was contradicting. It was an addition, a separate reason, and one I agree with.
One could even carry a little extra pressurized air to keep some air in the balloon for as long as possible, in order to shave a month off the time the bullet-like paint fleck needs to get low enough to burn in the atmosphere.
Yes, of course. It uses it's wings to turn in the vacuum of space! [/sacrasm]
Without means of propulsion you cannot orient yourself in space. Even the small rockets required to keep an antenna dish directed at earth are a means of propulsion. They are balanced, so they only provide rotation, but they could probably be fired separately. The small thrust provided by these could be used to hasten the re-entry a bit. However the companies usually prefer to use up the fuel in order to delay the re-entry and keep the sat working for a couple of extra years (that's the timescale involved).
Actually: GPS always results in two locations: one where you are and one as far from the satellite's orbit as you are, but in the other direction. It always finds a "space location". However the receiver assumes you are on the surface of the blue ball, so it ignores the other coordinates. If you told it to assume you are at the other location you would get the correct result (in this case).
The only place where this would not work is in a lower orbit as where the GPS satellites are (since the receiver would be unable to determine witch one it is), but these orbits are already declining quite fast, since they are very low (because the receiver antennae have to be small).
With no pressure on the outside of the balloon it would deflate very slowly.
So you are saying that if you would inflate a balloon on earth, bring it into space and make a controlled leak (so it wouldn't burst) it would deflate more slowly since the pressure is lower?
To state it oversimplified: No.
A bit of a longer answer: No, quite the reverse.
An even longer answer: The flow of air is directly proportional to the air pressure differential (assuming the holesize stays the same). So when you lower the outside pressure and the inside pressure remains the flow of air would increase. This would cause the balloon to deflate faster.
And what is the difference there with a car going faster in the other lane, or even at the same speed? Do you crash into those? You already have to look in your rear view mirror before switching lanes. I would wait to switch lanes if I saw that thing coming and the bus company would probably sue the hell out of you if you didn't (and crashed into the bus).
Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't like to see one in the Netherlands before it was well tested, but it seems they think they have Chinese test subjects enough...
Em, if you look at the middle-right lanes in the picture you can see some bars above the road. If someone drives a big rig they will probably get into serious trouble before the bus passes them. I can assume this is by design: the big rigs should use only the outer lanes.
In most countries this is considered normal: slow traffic on the outside lanes, fast traffic on the inside lanes. The inside lanes are only used for passing slow traffic and you are usually required to go back to the outer lane when possible (although many people don't). The penalty (in NL) can be EUR 90.
People are not allowed to pass on the right side (passing is only allowed on the left side) and can cost EUR 160.
Most countries do not abide by the rule "keep speed keep lane"
Yes a lot of knowledge has been lost, but even most civilization destroying events (not species destroying) would probably not cause that nowadays. There is a lot of data (Wikipedia for example) on many geospaced backups. These would be found within 100 years and people would start to figure out what the lost bytes were. It would give the new civilization a big jump in technology.
I even saw a way to make an offline dump portable: http://www.instructables.com/id/Wikipedia-in-your-pocket/ so the technology to read it would be available as well (assuming they have some form of electricity and it still works).
Things change, even on a large scale.
From the preventing sleep department:
http://www.nextconceptcars.com/custom-cars/bwm-m5-pickup/ At your service.
We are lucky it is only a concept car.
If they managed to get a yeast to 22% then the yeast will not be very good in other properties: taste for example. A good yeast adds about 10 % taste to your beer. It does this mostly by means of so called esthers: easily evaporating strong smelling organic componds. These esthers give a lot of details to the taste of the beer, like fruty. The malt can't provide for these, because it is heated above 100 degrees C for about two hours to lose DMS. The hopps provide some of them, but most of the hopps are also heated to 373 K for a while.There are usually some hopps added at the end of cooking for this reason (or they use dry hopping).
I am a hobby brewer and I have created a beer of about 12 %, although I do not have the lab to test the exact percentage (it can be found by the change in density). You can create a beer of more than 10% without freezing or distilling and there are some (not may) commercial beers of more than 10% out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westvleteren_Brewery 10.2%,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubuisson_Brewery 12%
and about half of the beers in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barley_wine
This however is not a beer in my book. It is fortified and may have retained some properties of beer, but the process of increasing the alcohol % to something beyond what the yeast can do is removing the classification of "Beer" in my book.
I would be interested however. How would a beer like substance of 55% taste? The price is a bit steep: If I wanted to spend so much on booze I'd get some decent islay, so I'd pretty much know it would be very good.
I'd use black paint. Other colors reflect more light so the laser wouldn't be as effective...
I'd say it has something to do with the fact that the missile is directed at you, so hitting the side would require some kind of horizontal bend in the trajectory (assuming the missile takes the most efficient route and the speed of the ship is irrelevant). This seems unfeasible to me. Note: I do not have any knowledge in this field beyond my basic logical reasoning and some highschool physics