Of course, this does not appear to apply to the instant case, because apparently Cybits is not modifying routers purchased for resale, but rather distributing software to modify them by their owners.
At this point, the argument becomes one of "Well, if a reseller can't sell modified routers because it violates their license regarding the copyright non-GPL bits", and Cybits facilitates such modification, Cybits is an "enabler" of copyright infringement.
As much as I try to play Devil's Advocate for the plaintiff here, I find plausible arguments in their favor getting weaker and weaker. And, that's a good thing.[*]
[*] I wrote "that's a good thing", not "it's a good thing"®. So back off, Ms. Stewart!
No, you can still redistribute the modified GPL code, but not the non-GPL bits that make up the compilation. At least, not unless the doctrine of first sale applies, and that strikes me as (a) weak, and possibly whisked away by, say, a reseller-contract, and (b) likely not applicable in Germany, anyway.
I can't take a Red Hat Linux CD, add stuff to it (assuming no difference between making a modified copy and modifying the physical original, which can't be done easily with CDs), and redistribute it unless (a) I remove all the non-GPL bits copyright Red Hat and others, or (b) secure Red Hat's permission. Red Hat, IIRC, grants that permission so long as I don't use their trademarks to promote it.
But, what this boils down to is restricting convenience: what is the logical difference of my buying something and modifying it, vs. my buying something and having someone else modify it for me, vs. someone else buying something, modifying it, and reselling it to me?
Nothing, yet, some of those might be restricted under the license covering the non-GPL bits of the compilation.
Now, the argument could be made that AVM needs to control quality over its products, and unauthorized modification may compromise that quality -- you don't want to be on the hook for someone else's changes to your router.
Therefore a license restriction to ensure continued support starts to make sense.
However, what that is is a warranty issue: "Warranty void if operating firmware modified". There, how hard is that?
1. This violates the GPL over the GPL-licensed parts of the whole, and therefore the GPL-licensed parts have to be excluded when the whole is distributed. The same reasoning applies if the restriction is due to a compilation copyright over the whole or a license regarding use that prohibits modification.
2. Irrelevant: the GPL parts continue to be licensed under the GPL or they can not be redistributed. The GPL permission for compilations does not weaken the GPL license for GPL components so compiled.
3. All a compilation copyright means is that no one else can redistribute the compilation. However, it can not restrict redistribution of the GPL licensed parts.
About the only case that can be made is that modified routers can't be sold, but routers could be sold along with the means to modify them. Or a router could be sold, and someone hired to modify it.
Of course, I am not a lawyer, and would welcome one correcting any error I made above.
Did anyone read that as "RMS Struggles Continue"?
on
RIM Struggles Continue
·
· Score: 0
I am no such thing as a tyrant. Remember, it would require sufficient numbers for a sufficient length of time to get the constitutional mandate to demand stepping down, or death.
I suppose such a group could be organized by an individual leading to the charge of "tyrant".
But, what could such a tyrant do? Nothing more than veto the status quo.
We have seen that recourse to the vote every few years, or recall procedures which only lead to an impotent vote, don't work to curb abuse of power in government. Those who govern should do so in constant fear of the electorate.
I, unlike public officials, do not [b]govern[/b] or are in the service of those who [b]govern[/b] others. Those who govern should be at the mercy of those governed.
From the Constitution of the United States: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
I would argue that a violation of the U.S.Constitution, as found by a jury of the electorate, described by me above, IS levying war against her.
But, as we are discussing an appropriate constitution for a nation of free people, the actual text of any existing one is of interest only in an academic sense.
My introduction of the notion of treason was only to illustrate that there exists precedence in the law of the U.S. for crimes that do not involve the taking of lives carrying the death penalty. I think that punishment be reserved for the corrupt elected.
A mockery of the democratic process?
Of course! All war is illegal from the point of view of the attacked. Therefore a civilized society requires a constitution which spells out clearly, and distinctly, when it is legal to overthrow the government.
Of course, if it is too easy to "off" an elected official, you'll have a nation in constant turmoil, with a government that is too weak. Conversely, if it is too hard, you have a strong government, that can too easily oppress the governed. The question arises, "Should there be a feedback mechanism to control such things?"
For example, once an elected official is convinced to go, it should be a bit harder to be able to raise the numbers to convince the next one to go. And, what if force is required? Should it get easier or harder to get the next one? Or stay the same? I'd be tempted to have it stay the same: the only way a government could avoid a forceful purge would be for members to start stepping down voluntarily.
Furthermore, in order for a government to be likely to be overthrown in extremis, it must be kept small enough, in numbers of electeds, appointeds, and employed, to make that a likely outcome if the required numbers oppose it. At the very least, the total size of government should be less than or equal to the numbers required to bring it down. If a mandated attempt fails, then the size of government must be reduced (though, how would you effect this, if you could not overthrow the existing one?), or the numbers required for a mandate must increase (which is the practical reality of losing a war because the other side is stronger).
Say you have one individual elected to "rule" over nine others, for a total of ten. It should be enough for 2/3ds, rounded up, to 7 to remove him, with deadly force, in about the time it takes for them to do it, say an hour.
So, if seven out of nine people can agree to remove the one that rules over them, they can do so, legitimately with whatever force it takes. And, surely, seven can take on three (the elected, and those who oppose the seven).
Suppose that for every order in magnitude increase in the governed, you halve the fraction necessary for removal:
1 ruling over 9 others requires 7 to remove: 70% agreeing for one hour
1 ruling over 99 others requires 35 to remove: 35% for two hours
1 ruling over 999 requires 175 to remove: 17.5% for four hours
1 ruling over 9,999 requires 875 to remove: 8.75% for 8 hours
1 ruling over 99,999 requires 4375 to remove: 4.375% for 16 hours
1 ruling over 999,999 requires 21875 to remove: 2.1875% for 32 hours (1-1/3 days)
1 ruling over 9,999,999 requires 109375 to remove: 1.09375% for 2-2/3 days
1 ruling over 99,999,999 requires 546875 to remove: 0.546875% for 5-1/3 days
Here, we start with a 70% figure, and as the governed population grows by a factor of ten, the number disgruntled grows by a factor of five, and the time for them to have to agree doubles. Those numbers can, of course, be tweaked.
Should it be reasonable for some 1/2% of the population of the U.S. to have the power, if they stand united for a bit over a week, to remove any member of the federal executive, judicial, or legislative branch? (Between orders of magnitude here I'm scaling linearly at the low end.) I dunno, maybe the numbers are too small. It would also require the government to be sufficiently weak, that a rag-tag army of a million and a half of her citizens could overthrow the government. (Though, getting a million and a half to occupy Washington DC for a week peacefully would be powerful politically in its own right).
I am libertarian and have thought about this at length.
The issue is not that the government's powers be limited to some arbitrary set.
The currently ARE limited by a nation's constitution, to some degree or other, even if not to the degree libertarians might like. Of course, some nation's constitutions are better in this regard than others, and the U.S. ranks up there, in the liberty department.
ON PAPER
A constitution is useless if the people are too weak to assert the rights it reserves for them.
To that end, the power of governments must be limited (no, not by a written document, but rather by people fighting it, or willing and able to) so that it can enforce judgments against small groups of "troublemakers" but be effectively opposed by the people if large masses oppose it. And, by large masses, I do not mean a majority of the population: I mean a group small enough that kindred spirits can effectively unite, but large enough that groups based on individual dis-empowerment as opposed to empowerment (and so requiring a control and enforcement structure that effectively imposes an overhead on their operation) are not likely to easily reach the necessary size.
Further, the realization has to be made that the lawful punishments for those who abuse power should be proportionate to the degree of power wielded: A corporate accountant caught stealing $100,000 should suffer perhaps the need to make restitution and the expenses of his prosecution. But, it would not be unreasonable for an elected official stealing pubic funds to the same degree to be put to death.
Election of public officials should require a majority vote.
Removal of public officials should require only the support of a small number of constituents to support it for some reasonable length of time -- what proportion and for how long being tunable parameters. But, here's the rub: if the numbers are raised, and the individual elected does not step down, a legal mandate for the removal of said official by deadly force is established.
That's the kind of stuff constitutions need: when it is the law of the land to kill a person in a position of political power (and, by extension, anyone who tries to prevent you from doing so).
Is this somehow barbaric? Taking lives for crimes that are not capital offenses? I don't think so, after all, all the targeted individual has to do is yield power granted by the electorate in the first place, to avoid the penalty.
The bottom line is that governments should be powerful enough to enforce the wishes of the people, but not one bit more.
Firing off an email on the way to the airport is not impractical. That's why we have smart phones that permit tethering of our laptops.
The lookup table is a possibility (the usual time vs. space trade off), but for a 32 bit word, that takes three shifts, four masks, four adds, four dereferences, and three more adds: 18 instructions. And, four of those are memory references. Breaking it up into words, takes a shift, two masks, two adds, two dereferences, and one more add: 8 instructions, of which two are memory references. Arguably faster, if you've got your lookup table in level 0 data cache, but that's an awful waste of level 0 data cache, depending on the overall application.
The right way to answer this question is to cover [b]ALL[/b] approaches and raise the question of tuning to the application.
I still maintain 15 instructions with no memory references, or data tables is likely to be the best for a wide array (no pun intended) of applications.
If you're even considering L0 cache for the data tables to make it as fast as possible, you'd be better off with custom silicon (though schedule might preclude it). I [b]STILL[/b] think the L0 data cache occupancy for such a silly table to save 7 instructions would be swamped by the negative effects of this on the rest of the app.
See, I examined multiple options, with assumptions about the application. If those assumed parameters are actually [b]known[/b] a better choice can be made tailored to the application in question.
And yes, I am partial to table lookups when memory is not an issue, particularly for CRC calculations in software.
What you, as the candidate do, when you've had that "D'Oh" moment on the way back to the airport, is the fire off an email with the solution.
It shows persistence, as well as hopefulness. Sure, copying a boilerplate solution out of a text can let you "fake" it, but most such problems aren't like that. I remember one problem: fastest way to add all the "1" bits in an unsigned int. And, no CXi Xj won't work unless your coding for a CDC Cyber.
The trick is this: mask out the even and odd parts of the unsigned into into two separate ones. Shift one over one bit. Add them.
You've just taken three instructions to parallel add every other bit. Rinse, lather, and repeat (shifting by two bits, then four bits, and so on, until you reach half the bit length of the unsigned int type).
This takes three instructions for a two-bit unsigned, six for a four-bit unsigned, nine for a byte-wide unsigned, 12 for a word-wide unsigned, 15 for a 32 bit unsigned, and 18 for a 64 bit unsigned. No loops or branches.
Consider the kinetic energy that must be removed from a mass m orbiting the sun at the Earth's distance from it in order for it to fall into the sun. This is simply mv^2/2 where v is the Earth's orbital velocity. IIRC, this is about 444 MJ/kg.
Now, consider the maximum energy such a mass could generate if completely turned into energy. Obviously, burning it up in the Sun will generate far less, but it's a good upper bound. E=mc^2, or 8.99x10^10 MJ/kg.
Seams like a lot, right?
Well, consider the angle the Earth subtends from the sun, and the ratio of areas of the Earth's projection on the sphere at Earth's orbit from the Sun. That's about 4.54x10^-10.
So, if the mass were entirely converted to energy, and beamed uniformly into space, the amount reaching the Earth would be 8.99x10^10x4.54x10^-10 MJ/kg or 40.8 MJ/kg.
That's a factor of about 11 too small, assuming complete conversion to energy, and perfect capture of the energy radiated back to the Earth.
Conclusion: one can not use the luminosity from the burning of garbage shot from the Earth to the Sun to power the process of shooting the garbage there.
Of course, this ignores the power already received from the Sun by the Earth. That's about 1KW/m^2. For each kilogram of garbage per second to launch to the sun, one would need about 403000 m^2 of perfect solar collectors to make up the deficit, or an area about 2083 feet square: a little under a half mile by half mile.
Slashdot Mirror
This is high tech.
Someone once explained to me the difference between low, medium, and high tech:
Low Tech: You can see how it works. Example: a mechanical wristwatch.
Medium Tech: You make the components so small, you can't see how it works. Example: a digital wristwatch.
High Tech: You make it out of the right stuff and in the right shape, and it Just Works. Example: a microwave waveguide.
I submit this also qualifies as high tech.
You've got to be shitting me.
So does "Come back with a warrant", at least in the U.S.
Of course, this does not appear to apply to the instant case, because apparently Cybits is not modifying routers purchased for resale, but rather distributing software to modify them by their owners.
At this point, the argument becomes one of "Well, if a reseller can't sell modified routers because it violates their license regarding the copyright non-GPL bits", and Cybits facilitates such modification, Cybits is an "enabler" of copyright infringement.
As much as I try to play Devil's Advocate for the plaintiff here, I find plausible arguments in their favor getting weaker and weaker. And, that's a good thing.[*]
[*] I wrote "that's a good thing", not "it's a good thing"®. So back off, Ms. Stewart!
No, you can still redistribute the modified GPL code, but not the non-GPL bits that make up the compilation. At least, not unless the doctrine of first sale applies, and that strikes me as (a) weak, and possibly whisked away by, say, a reseller-contract, and (b) likely not applicable in Germany, anyway.
I can't take a Red Hat Linux CD, add stuff to it (assuming no difference between making a modified copy and modifying the physical original, which can't be done easily with CDs), and redistribute it unless (a) I remove all the non-GPL bits copyright Red Hat and others, or (b) secure Red Hat's permission. Red Hat, IIRC, grants that permission so long as I don't use their trademarks to promote it.
But, what this boils down to is restricting convenience: what is the logical difference of my buying something and modifying it, vs. my buying something and having someone else modify it for me, vs. someone else buying something, modifying it, and reselling it to me?
Nothing, yet, some of those might be restricted under the license covering the non-GPL bits of the compilation.
Because the "features" may, in fact, introduce bugs, for which the customer may try to hold AVM responsible.
But, that is a warranty issue, and easily addressed.
Now, the argument could be made that AVM needs to control quality over its products, and unauthorized modification may compromise that quality -- you don't want to be on the hook for someone else's changes to your router.
Therefore a license restriction to ensure continued support starts to make sense.
However, what that is is a warranty issue: "Warranty void if operating firmware modified". There, how hard is that?
1. This violates the GPL over the GPL-licensed parts of the whole, and therefore the GPL-licensed parts have to be excluded when the whole is distributed. The same reasoning applies if the restriction is due to a compilation copyright over the whole or a license regarding use that prohibits modification.
2. Irrelevant: the GPL parts continue to be licensed under the GPL or they can not be redistributed. The GPL permission for compilations does not weaken the GPL license for GPL components so compiled.
3. All a compilation copyright means is that no one else can redistribute the compilation. However, it can not restrict redistribution of the GPL licensed parts.
About the only case that can be made is that modified routers can't be sold, but routers could be sold along with the means to modify them. Or a router could be sold, and someone hired to modify it.
Of course, I am not a lawyer, and would welcome one correcting any error I made above.
Just wondering.
I am no such thing as a tyrant. Remember, it would require sufficient numbers for a sufficient length of time to get the constitutional mandate to demand stepping down, or death.
I suppose such a group could be organized by an individual leading to the charge of "tyrant".
But, what could such a tyrant do? Nothing more than veto the status quo.
We have seen that recourse to the vote every few years, or recall procedures which only lead to an impotent vote, don't work to curb abuse of power in government. Those who govern should do so in constant fear of the electorate.
I, unlike public officials, do not [b]govern[/b] or are in the service of those who [b]govern[/b] others. Those who govern should be at the mercy of those governed.
From the Constitution of the United States: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
I would argue that a violation of the U.S.Constitution, as found by a jury of the electorate, described by me above, IS levying war against her.
But, as we are discussing an appropriate constitution for a nation of free people, the actual text of any existing one is of interest only in an academic sense.
My introduction of the notion of treason was only to illustrate that there exists precedence in the law of the U.S. for crimes that do not involve the taking of lives carrying the death penalty. I think that punishment be reserved for the corrupt elected.
A mockery of the democratic process?
Of course! All war is illegal from the point of view of the attacked. Therefore a civilized society requires a constitution which spells out clearly, and distinctly, when it is legal to overthrow the government.
Except, I am not a public official.
Further, a public official can simply step down to avoid the punishment.
Finally, capital punishment is quite normal for acts of treason. I think elected officials not respecting the wishes of the electorate qualifies.
It should take many to elect, few to remove.
Of course, if it is too easy to "off" an elected official, you'll have a nation in constant turmoil, with a government that is too weak. Conversely, if it is too hard, you have a strong government, that can too easily oppress the governed. The question arises, "Should there be a feedback mechanism to control such things?"
For example, once an elected official is convinced to go, it should be a bit harder to be able to raise the numbers to convince the next one to go. And, what if force is required? Should it get easier or harder to get the next one? Or stay the same? I'd be tempted to have it stay the same: the only way a government could avoid a forceful purge would be for members to start stepping down voluntarily.
Furthermore, in order for a government to be likely to be overthrown in extremis, it must be kept small enough, in numbers of electeds, appointeds, and employed, to make that a likely outcome if the required numbers oppose it. At the very least, the total size of government should be less than or equal to the numbers required to bring it down. If a mandated attempt fails, then the size of government must be reduced (though, how would you effect this, if you could not overthrow the existing one?), or the numbers required for a mandate must increase (which is the practical reality of losing a war because the other side is stronger).
Let's try some numbers.
Say you have one individual elected to "rule" over nine others, for a total of ten. It should be enough for 2/3ds, rounded up, to 7 to remove him, with deadly force, in about the time it takes for them to do it, say an hour.
So, if seven out of nine people can agree to remove the one that rules over them, they can do so, legitimately with whatever force it takes. And, surely, seven can take on three (the elected, and those who oppose the seven).
Suppose that for every order in magnitude increase in the governed, you halve the fraction necessary for removal:
1 ruling over 9 others requires 7 to remove: 70% agreeing for one hour
1 ruling over 99 others requires 35 to remove: 35% for two hours
1 ruling over 999 requires 175 to remove: 17.5% for four hours
1 ruling over 9,999 requires 875 to remove: 8.75% for 8 hours
1 ruling over 99,999 requires 4375 to remove: 4.375% for 16 hours
1 ruling over 999,999 requires 21875 to remove: 2.1875% for 32 hours (1-1/3 days)
1 ruling over 9,999,999 requires 109375 to remove: 1.09375% for 2-2/3 days
1 ruling over 99,999,999 requires 546875 to remove: 0.546875% for 5-1/3 days
Here, we start with a 70% figure, and as the governed population grows by a factor of ten, the number disgruntled grows by a factor of five, and the time for them to have to agree doubles. Those numbers can, of course, be tweaked.
Should it be reasonable for some 1/2% of the population of the U.S. to have the power, if they stand united for a bit over a week, to remove any member of the federal executive, judicial, or legislative branch? (Between orders of magnitude here I'm scaling linearly at the low end.) I dunno, maybe the numbers are too small. It would also require the government to be sufficiently weak, that a rag-tag army of a million and a half of her citizens could overthrow the government. (Though, getting a million and a half to occupy Washington DC for a week peacefully would be powerful politically in its own right).
I am libertarian and have thought about this at length.
The issue is not that the government's powers be limited to some arbitrary set.
The currently ARE limited by a nation's constitution, to some degree or other, even if not to the degree libertarians might like. Of course, some nation's constitutions are better in this regard than others, and the U.S. ranks up there, in the liberty department.
ON PAPER
A constitution is useless if the people are too weak to assert the rights it reserves for them.
To that end, the power of governments must be limited (no, not by a written document, but rather by people fighting it, or willing and able to) so that it can enforce judgments against small groups of "troublemakers" but be effectively opposed by the people if large masses oppose it. And, by large masses, I do not mean a majority of the population: I mean a group small enough that kindred spirits can effectively unite, but large enough that groups based on individual dis-empowerment as opposed to empowerment (and so requiring a control and enforcement structure that effectively imposes an overhead on their operation) are not likely to easily reach the necessary size.
Further, the realization has to be made that the lawful punishments for those who abuse power should be proportionate to the degree of power wielded: A corporate accountant caught stealing $100,000 should suffer perhaps the need to make restitution and the expenses of his prosecution. But, it would not be unreasonable for an elected official stealing pubic funds to the same degree to be put to death.
Election of public officials should require a majority vote.
Removal of public officials should require only the support of a small number of constituents to support it for some reasonable length of time -- what proportion and for how long being tunable parameters. But, here's the rub: if the numbers are raised, and the individual elected does not step down, a legal mandate for the removal of said official by deadly force is established.
That's the kind of stuff constitutions need: when it is the law of the land to kill a person in a position of political power (and, by extension, anyone who tries to prevent you from doing so).
Is this somehow barbaric? Taking lives for crimes that are not capital offenses? I don't think so, after all, all the targeted individual has to do is yield power granted by the electorate in the first place, to avoid the penalty.
The bottom line is that governments should be powerful enough to enforce the wishes of the people, but not one bit more.
It's not "peanut, butter, and jelly." It's "peanut butter, and jelly."
Loath it if you will, but at least get it right.
Saag paneer (curried spinach with fried fresh acid-set cheese) often includes star anise in the spice mix. Star anise tastes a bit like licorice.
So, the combination isn't THAT outrageous, though the contribution of the star anise is subtle at best.
Now, as for the pickled herring and raspberry jam my mother once came up with, well, lets just say it looks the same coming up as going down.
Firing off an email on the way to the airport is not impractical. That's why we have smart phones that permit tethering of our laptops.
The lookup table is a possibility (the usual time vs. space trade off), but for a 32 bit word, that takes three shifts, four masks, four adds, four dereferences, and three more adds: 18 instructions. And, four of those are memory references. Breaking it up into words, takes a shift, two masks, two adds, two dereferences, and one more add: 8 instructions, of which two are memory references. Arguably faster, if you've got your lookup table in level 0 data cache, but that's an awful waste of level 0 data cache, depending on the overall application.
The right way to answer this question is to cover [b]ALL[/b] approaches and raise the question of tuning to the application.
I still maintain 15 instructions with no memory references, or data tables is likely to be the best for a wide array (no pun intended) of applications.
If you're even considering L0 cache for the data tables to make it as fast as possible, you'd be better off with custom silicon (though schedule might preclude it). I [b]STILL[/b] think the L0 data cache occupancy for such a silly table to save 7 instructions would be swamped by the negative effects of this on the rest of the app.
See, I examined multiple options, with assumptions about the application. If those assumed parameters are actually [b]known[/b] a better choice can be made tailored to the application in question.
And yes, I am partial to table lookups when memory is not an issue, particularly for CRC calculations in software.
What you, as the candidate do, when you've had that "D'Oh" moment on the way back to the airport, is the fire off an email with the solution.
It shows persistence, as well as hopefulness. Sure, copying a boilerplate solution out of a text can let you "fake" it, but most such problems aren't like that.
I remember one problem: fastest way to add all the "1" bits in an unsigned int. And, no CXi Xj won't work unless your coding for a CDC Cyber.
The trick is this: mask out the even and odd parts of the unsigned into into two separate ones. Shift one over one bit. Add them.
You've just taken three instructions to parallel add every other bit. Rinse, lather, and repeat (shifting by two bits, then four bits, and so on, until you reach half the bit length of the unsigned int type).
This takes three instructions for a two-bit unsigned, six for a four-bit unsigned, nine for a byte-wide unsigned, 12 for a word-wide unsigned, 15 for a 32 bit unsigned, and 18 for a 64 bit unsigned. No loops or branches.
Yes, I got the job.
Oh My Gawd! It's full of SHIT!
goatse warning.
Grad course. The papers were entirely theoretical and academic. Things like algorithm complexity and stuff like that.
Consider the kinetic energy that must be removed from a mass m orbiting the sun at the Earth's distance from it in order for it to fall into the sun. This is simply mv^2/2 where v is the Earth's orbital velocity. IIRC, this is about 444 MJ/kg.
Now, consider the maximum energy such a mass could generate if completely turned into energy. Obviously, burning it up in the Sun will generate far less, but it's a good upper bound. E=mc^2, or 8.99x10^10 MJ/kg.
Seams like a lot, right?
Well, consider the angle the Earth subtends from the sun, and the ratio of areas of the Earth's projection on the sphere at Earth's orbit from the Sun. That's about 4.54x10^-10.
So, if the mass were entirely converted to energy, and beamed uniformly into space, the amount reaching the Earth would be 8.99x10^10x4.54x10^-10 MJ/kg or 40.8 MJ/kg.
That's a factor of about 11 too small, assuming complete conversion to energy, and perfect capture of the energy radiated back to the Earth.
Conclusion: one can not use the luminosity from the burning of garbage shot from the Earth to the Sun to power the process of shooting the garbage there.
Of course, this ignores the power already received from the Sun by the Earth. That's about 1KW/m^2. For each kilogram of garbage per second to launch to the sun, one would need about 403000 m^2 of perfect solar collectors to make up the deficit, or an area about 2083 feet square: a little under a half mile by half mile.
The whole prospect strikes me as unrealistic.
Yeah, but that fusion energy density falls off as the square of the distance (area of enveloping sphere at that distance).
I repeat, SHE?
Methinks NASA engineers have too much time on their hands.