Dude, I don't see anything at all that looks like a plane or crashed plane in your images. I mean, nothing even close. Did you muck up the copy/paste of the right coords?
Here's my candidate: 38.277054, -119.453659, and a quick look at maps.google.ca clearly shows that I'm looking at a two small dried up riverbed banks, not the broken off wings of an airplane minus the fusellage.
The Mechanical Turk should also put in the old pre-crash google-earth and google-maps-satellite images on the same page. This would vastly reduce the false positives that the admins are going to have to go through. My false positive rate is currently 1 in 150 images. That's huge.
Isn't this so large that it should be deemed a threat to national security? Not just to one country's national security, but ANY country's. Shouldn't there be a half dozen senior analysts from a few different countrys and from NATO HUNTING the people that control this thing and figuring out how to neutralize it?
> I'd suggest we all stop taking holidays abroad on aeroplanes
Are you kidding me? You want me to give up visiting someplace interesting so you can drive your car around on cheap gas a little longer or wait a few extra years before downsizing your living accomidations?
Screw you.
Anyone who doesn't take a trip to China or Russia or Australia now won't ever be able to afford one in 10 years. I'd much rather go without a car right now and live in a small apartment and walk to work - and travel around the world - than give it all up just so some other hosers can squander the engergy a little longer on something else.
Hell - if peak oil is such an absolute certainty, you'd do well to building massive tanks and just buying all you can afford and holding onto it for 10 years.
I'd say Madison Priest is a bloody GENIUS! It's all the other people giving him literally millions and millions of dollars that are blooming IDIOTS. I mean look at the "Mark Strong" guy. He kept believing even after he and a physicist opened up one of the earlier boxes and found it was empty!
What I think is always telling is when the big real companies like Intel call their bluff and say "okay, we'll give you a million dollars the week after you hand a prototype over to our lab" but - ooops - for some reason or other there's always an excuse as to why the prototype got destroyed by an act of nature or wasn't ready.
"Strong, who said he is now 90 percent sure the entire affair was a hoax".
Unless this thing takes unbelievable levels of technology to produce, it should be relatively simple to provide blueprints so the rest of us can duplicate and verify what happens. He doesn't have to worry about his IP, because he's got a patent, hasn't he.
And for all the people who continually scream about stuff being "buried" by "big oil" - why don't you simply publish complete accurate blueprints on the internet. It's IMPOSSIBLE to "supress" something on the internet. Exactly the opposite, the more it's "suppressed" the wider and faster it spreads. Look at decss or the HDDVD key.
Anyone remember many years ago when someone came up with a plugin or application that allowed users to "scrawl overtop-of" a webpage? It was a purely client side application talking to this plugin's owner's servers which would feed the plugin the text/drawings to put overtop of the webpage being viewed. Even THAT was judged to be a "no-no" and was shut down via legal threats - even though it was purely a client side modification to the display of the website.
What's being described here, injecting modifications into the copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright owner - is DEFINITELY illegal and making them very very liable.
How is ANYTHING you say any different than "it was magic"?
> you know, the observable stuff that you can apply the scientific method to?
Yeah! It's not like you can just look up and begin observing an infinite galaxy of stuff.
I'll be blunt - I don't think you have the faintest clue as to what the scientific method is. You like to pretend you do, you think you do, but you don't.
I'm guessing that it's be absolutely impossible for you to independenly move foward to discover fundamentally new things that aren't "common sense" as far as you can see it (just beyond the tip of your nose).
Bah, my bad. Everything on that page beloe the very first thing was probably quoted in response to the very first letter. Very poor formatting on Cryptome's part.
If you were designing a space craft it would be 2000 lbs overweight and require a $1-billion launch vehicle instead of a $100-million launch vehicle, and you'd get your ass fired.
What kind of moron "quips offhand" that he'd have been smart enough to fix/predict all 50,000 imaginary possible 5-factor problems (remember, this is just the one of 50,000 that occurred) as compared to the $100-million dollars worth of PhD-Years that someone else already spent on the problem.
> Theo's initial response that it was that wide distribution that really torqued him into a pretzel. Nobody likes having their dirty laundry aired in public
I love the posts where the BSD people call copying (oops I mean STEALING) someone else's code "a mistake" and "an accident".
Show me how you "accidentally" copy code without knowing you're copying someone else's code.
The only mistake was that they got caught and got publicly called out on it.
This reminds me of the mental idiocy that makes managers and pointy haired bosses all worried that somehow without their knowledge the GPL is going to "magically infect" their product. You're the one using the fucking GPL'd code - you either intended to use it or you didn't!! Either accept the fucking license or don't! Don't sit there bitching about how your poor penniless ass isn't allowed to use someone else's hard work.
> have you ever taken a plane trip over the coast of British Columbia? Its a mighty depressing sight to see the checkered landscape from all the clear cutting
It's not just the coast, it's all over the interior too. And you don't need a plane ride to see it - check out google maps satellite view:
Just unbelievable. Every single little "patch" you see there is a half kilometer long by half to full kilometer wide. I wonder how many citizens and politicians have seen just exactly how extensive it is.
But with a tiny bit of knowledge it is easy to estimate how far these things are away.
Things in orbit or just coming out of orbit must be typically travelling 5-10 KM per second. So in order for the "junk" to be 5 nautical miles in front of them, it needs to cross 45 degrees of the sky in a single second.
If it's moving much slower than that, it's proportionally further away.
Count to 5 and see how much of the sky it has crossed. The distance it has travelled in those 10 seconds is 30-50 KM or more. Now make an estimate as to how far away it was.
Then we need to get the laws changed to explicitly indicate the machine readable protocols (robots.txt) that must be used on the internet to opt out of archives, spiders, and caches. Yes I'm saying that we should put into law the precept that anything put on the internet (or maybe just the web, maybe just http/text/static-images) is in and of itself an explicit act of allowing others to do what google and internet-archive are doing. (How we nicely fit this together with copyright law is an excercise left to the reader - but afaiac how things are in effect working now is fine by me, the only problem is codifying it.)
Internet Archive and Google provide such a HUGE benefit that to in effect make them illegal due to one single person out of 500,000,000 being a hardass-bastard is totally not acceptable.
And are we really going to drop the standard of living for 6 billion people just so 60 million people who live on low lying islands don't go through the inconvenience of having their children and their children's children find jobs elsewhere?
Guess what? Tens of millions of people's children and children's children ALREADY move to the other side of the world to find a better life. They don't do that because "their little island flooded" - they do it simply because they want... wait for it... A HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING.
And don't talk to me about NYC. Manhattan is so rich that over 100 years they could build a 20 foot seawall around themselves and be perfectly fine.
The Economist's and Lawers and Law professors surely haven't been a part of or done the proper research. But "climatologist" didn't really exist as a well known "field" when I went through University 15 years ago. You may wish to check the publications for those on your list who are capable of doing such research despite not "being a climatologist". To be honest I wouldn't have even expected most "climatologists" today to call themselves "climatologists" - I mean how many universities have founded full fledged "departments of climatology" - but rather for them to be physicists and geologists (or something similar) - and just be *doing* climatology.
So let me grab two names at random from your list that you've already "discredited" simply because they don't have the official title of "climatologist" and see if they've got any proper publications in the field:
I've had to go outside scirus for "Fred Goldberg" because it's kind of clunky when more than one person matches a last name, and I'm not certain how widely (in terms of scientific journals) it's database covers. Here's my best reference for "Fred Goldberg":
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ouqkCiaX7fsJ:w ww.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx%3Fid%3D2178 +fred+goldberg+physicist+climate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd= 3 "Goldberg is a member of the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and earned his doctorate in Mechanical Engineering. He feels that not being a climatologist allows him to make scientific observations contradictory to mainstream opinion, whereas those in the field may be reluctant to express dissenting opinions for fear that it could damage their standing in the community. He has done considerable research in the area of climate change including participation in frequent expeditions from 1966 to the present to extract Arctic polar ice cores. "
I'm not claiming all of them are "on the level" - I certainly don't believe it was the Sun - and I'd probably agree it's an infomercial - but beware that you too can be falable and commit as grave an error as you claim they are making, and I am concluding that YES you are being sanctimonious.
Caveat - I've never been a denier and I appreciate not using more resources than we have to. Hell I don't own a car. Now that it's more accepted fact that the recent warming is caused by us, the next question on my mind is - is it *really* a bad thing?
Seriously!
Have they *really* done a proper study comparing how much land will be rendered inarable as compared to how much more land will become arable? Have they factored in how easy it is for entire human populations to shift if there's an economic reason to move?
Or have they just figured out what might happen to certain parts of land we currently use, and then scream the sky will fall?
Have you ever looked at the 100 kiloyear cycle, where 10,000 years ago all of Canada was under a kilometer of ice? Ever heard of the Canadian Breadbasket? The massive wheat fields of western Canada? To be honest if human activity PREVENTS and BREAKS the 100 kiloyear cycle, I"M ALL FOR IT. I don't want to see all of Canada and all of Northern Europe and Russia covered with a 1km thick ice shield in 50,000 years. Do you?
You know damn well everyone is merely afraid of "change". OOooooh evil evil change. God forbid the millions of people who live in Bangladesh should have to move. Oh wait, really we should already be moving them, considering how many die EVERY SINGLE FUCKING YEAR from flooding. So why haven't they been moved yet? OH WAIT - it's because there are political borders and the people in Western Canada and the Central USA would never ever ever let them in (repeat with every single other country in the entire fucking world.
Maybe the first thing we should do is figure out how to get rid of:
a) economic and social inequity
b) removing political borders that prevent people from moving to nicer places where the weather is perfect for all of us all year round - as opposed to having to live in Bangladesh or Canada -- Yes fucking Canada! It's fucking cold here 75% of the time! Who the hell in their right mind would settle here unless they were being persecuted or fleeing poverty or searching for riches or cheap land in an agrarian world of the late 1800's?
We're all modern now - there's no reason we can't all move down to and settle the northern fringes of South America where it's 15 deg C or more above all fricking year. Maybe we'll come up and vacation in Canada in July and August when it's 25/30/35 deg C here.
They might not realize it, but they already have 50 percent of the search market. At least 50 percent of the "Intelligentsia" search market.
Fifty percent of the stuff I used to "look up" through a google search - I now get through wikipedia. You just have to be smart enough to know that the info you are looking for is most likely in wikipedia. And it most often is. Especially since wikipedia is so open - they've got articles for tons and tons of things that no mainstream encyclopedia would ever touch. I no longer use "fan sites" or "episode guide companies" for the episode guides of TV Series, they're all in wikipedia, and the layout and presentation is even better.
Talking about dirty - I'd cover the 99% mirror with an ultra thin ablative designed to blow away cleanly on first impact of the laser - which takes the dirt and dust with it and then underneath is the perfect 99% mirror. And my projectile is going to be spinning and moving at mach 2 - the airflow will cool your hairdryer effect nicely. There's also got to be a reason they want 100KW and not 10 KW (10 times your puny 1KW).
This conversation reminds me of the ABM missile discussions, it costs 10 billion dollars to make an ABM system but only 50,000 for a couple engineers to think hard to make ultra hard to beat countermeasures.
Think of the corny old 60's movies where the guy in the lab coat goes "Eureka!" and pow - his car can fly. Exactly the kind of "out of thin air we've solved everything".
Hmmm, the page you link to claims that non-latin usernames are allowed - but they strongly suggest a transliteration be provided in the user's sig. The page also claims that the right way to deal with an inappropriate username is to talk to the person, and there is a whole section on escallation. Sounds like the only way a person would get the 48 hour IP ban is... if they're a vandal. And if they're not a vandal and it was a "rogue admin" - it wouldn't be hard to find other admins to review the "rogue admin's" actions.
You're such a zelous anti-sex absitnence religious nut that you think locking boys and girls who see each other naked in prison for 10 years and ruining the REST OF THEIR ENTIRE LIVES by putting them in a database of sex offenders... IS REASONABLE!!?!?!
When I was 16, I could see myself naked. When a girl is 15, she can see herself naked. When a 15 year old boy and a 16 year old girl get together - they can see each other naked - and there's no way in hell that should be THIS illegal!!!
Yes somewhere between 16 years of age and 6 years of age there needs to be a cut-off.
If you want to prevent old men from raping young people, fine. If you want to make it illegal for old men to exploit young people by dealing in child-pornography - fine. But there's no way in hell a 16 year old taking a picture of himself or herself should be illegal. Yes maybe it should be a tiny bit illegal if they distribute it to anyone else. But not "ruin the entire rest of your entire fucking life" illegal. If anyone else distributes that picture, that's right back to full blown child-porn illegal.
FFS - this is why you need Supreme Courts - to put the totalitarian nazi's back in their fucking places. 16, 26 - CITIZEN WITH RIGHTS. Maybe not full rights, but this is stupid simple shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, I don't see anything at all that looks like a plane or crashed plane in your images. I mean, nothing even close. Did you muck up the copy/paste of the right coords?
Here's my candidate: 38.277054, -119.453659, and a quick look at maps.google.ca
clearly shows that I'm looking at a two small dried up riverbed banks, not the broken off wings of an airplane minus the fusellage.
The Mechanical Turk should also put in the old pre-crash google-earth and google-maps-satellite images on the same page. This would vastly reduce the false positives that the admins are going to have to go through. My false positive rate is currently 1 in 150 images. That's huge.
Isn't this so large that it should be deemed a threat to national security? Not just to one country's national security, but ANY country's. Shouldn't there be a half dozen senior analysts from a few different countrys and from NATO HUNTING the people that control this thing and figuring out how to neutralize it?
> I'd suggest we all stop taking holidays abroad on aeroplanes
Are you kidding me? You want me to give up visiting someplace interesting so you can drive your car around on cheap gas a little longer or wait a few extra years before downsizing your living accomidations?
Screw you.
Anyone who doesn't take a trip to China or Russia or Australia now won't ever be able to afford one in 10 years. I'd much rather go without a car right now and live in a small apartment and walk to work - and travel around the world - than give it all up just so some other hosers can squander the engergy a little longer on something else.
Hell - if peak oil is such an absolute certainty, you'd do well to building massive tanks and just buying all you can afford and holding onto it for 10 years.
AHAHHAhahahahaha - look at this story (if the f'ing javascript redirect doesn't piss you off) - http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:V8jNRXh7364J:w ww.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/050602/met_9 326453.html+madison+priest+%22magic+box%22&hl=en&c t=clnk&cd=2
I'd say Madison Priest is a bloody GENIUS! It's all the other people giving him literally millions and millions of dollars that are blooming IDIOTS. I mean look at the "Mark Strong" guy. He kept believing even after he and a physicist opened up one of the earlier boxes and found it was empty!
What I think is always telling is when the big real companies like Intel call their bluff and say "okay, we'll give you a million dollars the week after you hand a prototype over to our lab" but - ooops - for some reason or other there's always an excuse as to why the prototype got destroyed by an act of nature or wasn't ready.
"Strong, who said he is now 90 percent sure the entire affair was a hoax".
90 percent sure.
> We don't see anything of his just yet.
NO SHIT.
Unless this thing takes unbelievable levels of technology to produce, it should be relatively simple to provide blueprints so the rest of us can duplicate and verify what happens. He doesn't have to worry about his IP, because he's got a patent, hasn't he.
And for all the people who continually scream about stuff being "buried" by "big oil" - why don't you simply publish complete accurate blueprints on the internet. It's IMPOSSIBLE to "supress" something on the internet. Exactly the opposite, the more it's "suppressed" the wider and faster it spreads. Look at decss or the HDDVD key.
Fuck video - Blueprints or it doesn't exist!
Yup.
Anyone remember many years ago when someone came up with a plugin or application that allowed users to "scrawl overtop-of" a webpage? It was a purely client side application talking to this plugin's owner's servers which would feed the plugin the text/drawings to put overtop of the webpage being viewed. Even THAT was judged to be a "no-no" and was shut down via legal threats - even though it was purely a client side modification to the display of the website.
What's being described here, injecting modifications into the copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright owner - is DEFINITELY illegal and making them very very liable.
My conclusion is that in this specific instance, European laws are stupid.
> There is absolutely no proof ...
How is ANYTHING you say any different than "it was magic"?
> you know, the observable stuff that you can apply the scientific method to?
Yeah! It's not like you can just look up and begin observing an infinite galaxy of stuff.
I'll be blunt - I don't think you have the faintest clue as to what the scientific method is. You like to pretend you do, you think you do, but you don't.
I'm guessing that it's be absolutely impossible for you to independenly move foward to discover fundamentally new things that aren't "common sense" as far as you can see it (just beyond the tip of your nose).
Bah, my bad. Everything on that page beloe the very first thing was probably quoted in response to the very first letter. Very poor formatting on Cryptome's part.
Why is everything on that page dated 2001?
Are you kidding me? You approved a story that happened SIX (6) years ago?
> Personally if I was designing a space craft
If you were designing a space craft it would be 2000 lbs overweight and require a $1-billion launch vehicle instead of a $100-million launch vehicle, and you'd get your ass fired.
What kind of moron "quips offhand" that he'd have been smart enough to fix/predict all 50,000 imaginary possible 5-factor problems (remember, this is just the one of 50,000 that occurred) as compared to the $100-million dollars worth of PhD-Years that someone else already spent on the problem.
> Theo's initial response that it was that wide distribution that really torqued him into a pretzel. Nobody likes having their dirty laundry aired in public
s s.general/1558
The recipients list looks perfectly fine to me:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wirele
.
.
No shit.
I love the posts where the BSD people call copying (oops I mean STEALING) someone else's code "a mistake" and "an accident".
Show me how you "accidentally" copy code without knowing you're copying someone else's code.
The only mistake was that they got caught and got publicly called out on it.
This reminds me of the mental idiocy that makes managers and pointy haired bosses all worried that somehow without their knowledge the GPL is going to "magically infect" their product. You're the one using the fucking GPL'd code - you either intended to use it or you didn't!! Either accept the fucking license or don't! Don't sit there bitching about how your poor penniless ass isn't allowed to use someone else's hard work.
.
> have you ever taken a plane trip over the coast of British Columbia? Its a mighty depressing sight to see the checkered landscape from all the clear cutting
= 10&ll=49.851266,-120.206909&spn=0.621596,1.275787& t=k&om=1
It's not just the coast, it's all over the interior too. And you don't need a plane ride to see it - check out google maps satellite view:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=vancouver&ie=UTF8&z
Just unbelievable. Every single little "patch" you see there is a half kilometer long by half to full kilometer wide. I wonder how many citizens and politicians have seen just exactly how extensive it is.
Yup.
But with a tiny bit of knowledge it is easy to estimate how far these things are away.
Things in orbit or just coming out of orbit must be typically travelling 5-10 KM per second. So in order for the "junk" to be 5 nautical miles in front of them, it needs to cross 45 degrees of the sky in a single second.
If it's moving much slower than that, it's proportionally further away.
Count to 5 and see how much of the sky it has crossed. The distance it has travelled in those 10 seconds is 30-50 KM or more. Now make an estimate as to how far away it was.
Then we need to get the laws changed to explicitly indicate the machine readable protocols (robots.txt) that must be used on the internet to opt out of archives, spiders, and caches. Yes I'm saying that we should put into law the precept that anything put on the internet (or maybe just the web, maybe just http/text/static-images) is in and of itself an explicit act of allowing others to do what google and internet-archive are doing. (How we nicely fit this together with copyright law is an excercise left to the reader - but afaiac how things are in effect working now is fine by me, the only problem is codifying it.)
Internet Archive and Google provide such a HUGE benefit that to in effect make them illegal due to one single person out of 500,000,000 being a hardass-bastard is totally not acceptable.
Best reading ever - a point by point description of his actual academic credentials (or rather lack thereof) - straight from a filing to the courts:
o m/files/Johnson%20statement%20of%20defence.pdf
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.c
.
And are we really going to drop the standard of living for 6 billion people just so 60 million people who live on low lying islands don't go through the inconvenience of having their children and their children's children find jobs elsewhere?
... wait for it ... A HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING.
Guess what? Tens of millions of people's children and children's children ALREADY move to the other side of the world to find a better life. They don't do that because "their little island flooded" - they do it simply because they want
And don't talk to me about NYC. Manhattan is so rich that over 100 years they could build a 20 foot seawall around themselves and be perfectly fine.
The Economist's and Lawers and Law professors surely haven't been a part of or done the proper research. But "climatologist" didn't really exist as a well known "field" when I went through University 15 years ago. You may wish to check the publications for those on your list who are capable of doing such research despite not "being a climatologist". To be honest I wouldn't have even expected most "climatologists" today to call themselves "climatologists" - I mean how many universities have founded full fledged "departments of climatology" - but rather for them to be physicists and geologists (or something similar) - and just be *doing* climatology.
e nsmark+Henrik&ds=jnl&ds=nom&g=s&t=all
w ww.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx%3Fid%3D2178 +fred+goldberg+physicist+climate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd= 3
So let me grab two names at random from your list that you've already "discredited" simply because they don't have the official title of "climatologist" and see if they've got any proper publications in the field:
Dr. Henrik Svensmark: Physicist
http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=author%3ASv
I've had to go outside scirus for "Fred Goldberg" because it's kind of clunky when more than one person matches a last name, and I'm not certain how widely (in terms of scientific journals) it's database covers. Here's my best reference for "Fred Goldberg":
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ouqkCiaX7fsJ:
"Goldberg is a member of the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and earned his doctorate in Mechanical Engineering. He feels that not being a climatologist allows him to make scientific observations contradictory to mainstream opinion, whereas those in the field may be reluctant to express dissenting opinions for fear that it could damage their standing in the community. He has done considerable research in the area of climate change including participation in frequent expeditions from 1966 to the present to extract Arctic polar ice cores. "
I'm not claiming all of them are "on the level" - I certainly don't believe it was the Sun - and I'd probably agree it's an infomercial - but beware that you too can be falable and commit as grave an error as you claim they are making, and I am concluding that YES you are being sanctimonious.
Caveat - I've never been a denier and I appreciate not using more resources than we have to. Hell I don't own a car. Now that it's more accepted fact that the recent warming is caused by us, the next question on my mind is - is it *really* a bad thing?
Seriously!
Have they *really* done a proper study comparing how much land will be rendered inarable as compared to how much more land will become arable? Have they factored in how easy it is for entire human populations to shift if there's an economic reason to move?
Or have they just figured out what might happen to certain parts of land we currently use, and then scream the sky will fall?
Have you ever looked at the 100 kiloyear cycle, where 10,000 years ago all of Canada was under a kilometer of ice? Ever heard of the Canadian Breadbasket? The massive wheat fields of western Canada? To be honest if human activity PREVENTS and BREAKS the 100 kiloyear cycle, I"M ALL FOR IT. I don't want to see all of Canada and all of Northern Europe and Russia covered with a 1km thick ice shield in 50,000 years. Do you?
You know damn well everyone is merely afraid of "change". OOooooh evil evil change. God forbid the millions of people who live in Bangladesh should have to move. Oh wait, really we should already be moving them, considering how many die EVERY SINGLE FUCKING YEAR from flooding. So why haven't they been moved yet? OH WAIT - it's because there are political borders and the people in Western Canada and the Central USA would never ever ever let them in (repeat with every single other country in the entire fucking world.
Maybe the first thing we should do is figure out how to get rid of:
a) economic and social inequity
b) removing political borders that prevent people from moving to nicer places where the weather is perfect for all of us all year round - as opposed to having to live in Bangladesh or Canada -- Yes fucking Canada! It's fucking cold here 75% of the time! Who the hell in their right mind would settle here unless they were being persecuted or fleeing poverty or searching for riches or cheap land in an agrarian world of the late 1800's?
We're all modern now - there's no reason we can't all move down to and settle the northern fringes of South America where it's 15 deg C or more above all fricking year. Maybe we'll come up and vacation in Canada in July and August when it's 25/30/35 deg C here.
They might not realize it, but they already have 50 percent of the search market. At least 50 percent of the "Intelligentsia" search market.
Fifty percent of the stuff I used to "look up" through a google search - I now get through wikipedia. You just have to be smart enough to know that the info you are looking for is most likely in wikipedia. And it most often is. Especially since wikipedia is so open - they've got articles for tons and tons of things that no mainstream encyclopedia would ever touch. I no longer use "fan sites" or "episode guide companies" for the episode guides of TV Series, they're all in wikipedia, and the layout and presentation is even better.
Talking about dirty - I'd cover the 99% mirror with an ultra thin ablative designed to blow away cleanly on first impact of the laser - which takes the dirt and dust with it and then underneath is the perfect 99% mirror. And my projectile is going to be spinning and moving at mach 2 - the airflow will cool your hairdryer effect nicely. There's also got to be a reason they want 100KW and not 10 KW (10 times your puny 1KW).
This conversation reminds me of the ABM missile discussions, it costs 10 billion dollars to make an ABM system but only 50,000 for a couple engineers to think hard to make ultra hard to beat countermeasures.
Think of the corny old 60's movies where the guy in the lab coat goes "Eureka!" and pow - his car can fly. Exactly the kind of "out of thin air we've solved everything".
Of course this might have some humor value:
Hmmm, the page you link to claims that non-latin usernames are allowed - but they strongly suggest a transliteration be provided in the user's sig. The page also claims that the right way to deal with an inappropriate username is to talk to the person, and there is a whole section on escallation. Sounds like the only way a person would get the 48 hour IP ban is ... if they're a vandal. And if they're not a vandal and it was a "rogue admin" - it wouldn't be hard to find other admins to review the "rogue admin's" actions.
What the FUCK is wrong with you!!!
... IS REASONABLE!!?!?!
You're such a zelous anti-sex absitnence religious nut that you think locking boys and girls who see each other naked in prison for 10 years and ruining the REST OF THEIR ENTIRE LIVES by putting them in a database of sex offenders
When I was 16, I could see myself naked. When a girl is 15, she can see herself naked. When a 15 year old boy and a 16 year old girl get together - they can see each other naked - and there's no way in hell that should be THIS illegal!!!
Yes somewhere between 16 years of age and 6 years of age there needs to be a cut-off.
If you want to prevent old men from raping young people, fine. If you want to make it illegal for old men to exploit young people by dealing in child-pornography - fine. But there's no way in hell a 16 year old taking a picture of himself or herself should be illegal. Yes maybe it should be a tiny bit illegal if they distribute it to anyone else. But not "ruin the entire rest of your entire fucking life" illegal. If anyone else distributes that picture, that's right back to full blown child-porn illegal.
FFS - this is why you need Supreme Courts - to put the totalitarian nazi's back in their fucking places. 16, 26 - CITIZEN WITH RIGHTS. Maybe not full rights, but this is stupid simple shit.