If you have some evidence to suggest that two random asteroids (or comets) have similar mechanical properties, that'd make some nice reading. So far, we have two data points and a lot of modelling.
I don't know what you mean. I mentioned a second asteroid because I was trying to find an external large source of momentum (but good luck with that) to cause a change of direction with one large blast. Spacecraft don't have a lot of momentum. And neither do nukes actually but the ablative effect of the heat may give some extra push. . But it all looks like a terrible idea because as soon as you have pieces flying about then managing them becomes instantly more complicated.
With plutonium the whole difference is whether you inhale it or not. Probably ingestion counts as well. Inside of you it it's extremely dangerous, outside of you it's relatively harmless.
Actually nuclear power in the west is as good as dead. Hardly anything new is being built and huge costs for decommissioning coming up . Now in the east, you know, like china, there is construction going on. That is, where there is a lot of cooling water, meaning in highly populated areas, sometimes unstable geography. That could become interesting. I'm not enthusiastic either.
The acceleration numbers are spectacular but one cannot conclude at all this car is a sportscar. The first thing I'd want to know is, the batteries heat up under hard acceleration. Therefore the question is, can the car do hard acceleration repeatedly without overheating and cutting the power. I found conflicting information on the webs about the Tesla in that respect but in any case it would be a valid question for this car as well.
but the most likely method is simply ramming into the asteroid to change its course.
If you have a 200m asteroid that's the same as 60 times 50m asteroids, each enough to wipe out a large city. You generally don't want to break up an asteroid and turn it into giant buckshot, with pieces covering a wide area. Also in order to change momentum considerably you'd need to find another small asteroid to pull into a collision course because a missile is not going to do anything. So I checked the links. This is not the design they have in mind. All I see is that they want to try ramming it with a projectile just to see what happens, not in order to deflect it. See how loosely packed an asteroid is for instance. I can imagine trying to find out how strong an asteroid is before starting to mess around with it. The actual design they'll have to use is to push the dangerous asteroid over a very long time, starting a long time in advance. And since the asteroid is usually rotating it would have to be cleverly timed pushing as well.
Yes I recall reading that, but it sounded too much like an self driving car triumph story. Of course traffic fatalities have been going down dramatically over the last 40 years without automated cars.
The WaPo has now completely retracted the story , https://www.washingtonpost.com... So in principle they acted correctly here. They adhered to their own rulebook. Effectively however they contributed to the hysteria and that's not acknowledged. If you look at it statistically, take 10 stories like that, some pass without complaints, some get partial retractions, some are fully retracted after the fact when the damage is done, but the net effect is a lot of scaremongering even if a paper tries to follow its own rules.
You mean it should have been Russian Hackers Failed to Penetrate The US Electricity Grid, Say Officials? No retraction needed then and the scarefactor is still good.
Well..it's still too much caricature. Who says the 'heir' of the Office of Strategic Influence is involved here? PR is available to many, to the extent that there's hardly any central player who can maintain a clear view, and the gullible who play along usually have their own interest in mind. In this case there are a lot of official sources though.
I don't know how much of the Russian hacking scandal is valid and how much is PR (propaganda).
But PR does not care about truth or falsehood, it will use anything. The last large analysis of a campaign that I know of is from the Iraq war. You can find the report here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind... Note the extent of the organisation, how many people and resources are involved. It's yuge. And the variation in types of stories. There can be speculation, fear mongering(which does not require lying, you just worry about possibilities), claims, plain false stories. It's a great analysis. These people haven't been sitting on their asses since then. In this case there's a campaign to ruin the relation with Russia and make it very hard for Trump to mend that(only russian stooges want better relations with russia).And to take away the focus from the content of the leaks, which were uh about what again? With fake news there is little or no build up. It's just rumors made up of thin air. That's amateurish and low budget. Real campaigns work on many fronts at once. Once you have official sources and favored journalists channelling anonymous sources you're instantly playing on another level. In this case the trumped up charges are that the Russians made sure Trump was elected by hacking Podesta and DNC computers and passing them to wikileaks. With a good campaign every reasonable person should start to doubt and think there must be really something to it.
Wikileaks say (reluctantly) that they got their data from the inside, not through hacking and not through the russians.
Suppose there's a hack. The reaction to is a choice. You can choose to minimize it. You can choose to respond in kind. Usually secret agencies would fight this out quietly. You can choose to take the opportunity to escalate the tensions as much as possible. That is clear intent.
In the old days I learned machine language, then assembler and then basic, all from the bottom up , but that was the seventies. Now on pcs assember is rarely needed and when it's used for performance reasons you can still question whether it's really needed. Hacking is different because you're trying to break things, you don't want to respect the interface and its safeties and errorhandling. On custom hardware though like modems I know assembler is used a lot.
Too complicated. Simpler - implement system for police to take control over any vehicle so thieves and terrorists will no longer be able to flee and we'll finally be safe from bad people. - then get an authorization key and access the system. Also, the only people overriding the external access will be..
What are they asking forgiveness for then? As far as I can see they don't consider the problem to be aggressive updating, but the occasional 'excessively aggressive updating'. That's an insignificant concession.
My feeling is it isn't worth investigating. Usually the idea is that 'science should thoroughly investigate whether claims like this are true'. That's why I mentioned science as investment: in that model you can't invest in everything so you have to choose. This falls off the list.
I listed it for the purposes of rhetoric only because it keeps coming up here.
Valid argument. It was not a good list of possibilities because it was not intended as such.
If momentum is escaping in another way, such as it stripping off the inner layer of copper and ejecting it, then it's not working as an EM drive.
Fine. But what the experiment tests is "it works". "This thing I set up here pushes. And I have a theory that it proves that hell will freeze over anytime now and you have to buy it together with the experiment!"
Then at least one should be able to buy the experiment without buying into the theory as well. That was this third option I mentioned.
Does that mean as a scientific investor I would think this experiment is worth investing in? I don't. Apparently some have made the calculus that 'slim chance of success but if successful yielding extremely high theoretical reward' makes it worthwhile.
You know we can calculate the maximum possible thrust from leaked radiation and it's 3uN/kW, vastly smaller than the amount reported. Therefore it isn't that.
That's 'openended microwave generator' right, so everything gets out? Good argument.
Yeah. So now reread my post. I'm not arguing that maybe there is thrust with conservation of momentum. I'm saying that your differential diagnosis is lacking.
You're willing to put the law of conservation of energy on your list of possibilities , ranking it that as 'outrageously unlikely' but listable.
But the possibility that energy and momentum are getting out in a way that was overlooked, that you consider fairytale level and not even worth listing.
It should be the other way round at least.
So you'll sooner consider the hypothesis that conservation of momentum is broken than consider the hypothesis that there's radiation leaking in a place they haven't looked yet. No wonder you believe in unicorns.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe MacBook Pro owners could get together and sue Apple somehow for being responsible for the death of uh, some people.
With plutonium the whole difference is whether you inhale it or not. Probably ingestion counts as well. Inside of you it it's extremely dangerous, outside of you it's relatively harmless.
Actually nuclear power in the west is as good as dead. Hardly anything new is being built and huge costs for decommissioning coming up . Now in the east, you know, like china, there is construction going on. That is, where there is a lot of cooling water, meaning in highly populated areas, sometimes unstable geography. That could become interesting. I'm not enthusiastic either.
So do many people give a shit about 4k screens I wonder. On laptops that is.
Here ( http://www.motorauthority.com/... ) the Tesla can only do a third of the Nurburgring before temperature safeguards cut the power.
The acceleration numbers are spectacular but one cannot conclude at all this car is a sportscar. The first thing I'd want to know is, the batteries heat up under hard acceleration. Therefore the question is, can the car do hard acceleration repeatedly without overheating and cutting the power.
I found conflicting information on the webs about the Tesla in that respect but in any case it would be a valid question for this car as well.
The summary says
If you have a 200m asteroid that's the same as 60 times 50m asteroids, each enough to wipe out a large city. You generally don't want to break up an asteroid and turn it into giant buckshot, with pieces covering a wide area. Also in order to change momentum considerably you'd need to find another small asteroid to pull into a collision course because a missile is not going to do anything. So I checked the links. This is not the design they have in mind. All I see is that they want to try ramming it with a projectile just to see what happens, not in order to deflect it. See how loosely packed an asteroid is for instance. I can imagine trying to find out how strong an asteroid is before starting to mess around with it.
The actual design they'll have to use is to push the dangerous asteroid over a very long time, starting a long time in advance. And since the asteroid is usually rotating it would have to be cleverly timed pushing as well.
Yes I recall reading that, but it sounded too much like an self driving car triumph story. Of course traffic fatalities have been going down dramatically over the last 40 years without automated cars.
The WaPo has now completely retracted the story , https://www.washingtonpost.com...
So in principle they acted correctly here. They adhered to their own rulebook. Effectively however they contributed to the hysteria and that's not acknowledged. If you look at it statistically, take 10 stories like that, some pass without complaints, some get partial retractions, some are fully retracted after the fact when the damage is done, but the net effect is a lot of scaremongering even if a paper tries to follow its own rules.
That's a downside of declining traffic casualties. Traffic is one of the sources of healthy and young donors.
You mean it should have been Russian Hackers Failed to Penetrate The US Electricity Grid, Say Officials? No retraction needed then and the scarefactor is still good.
I ment that my post was still too much caricature :) Sourcewatch is a good reference site i think but then I'm a bit leftie myself. In a way.
Well..it's still too much caricature. Who says the 'heir' of the Office of Strategic Influence is involved here? PR is available to many, to the extent that there's hardly any central player who can maintain a clear view, and the gullible who play along usually have their own interest in mind. In this case there are a lot of official sources though.
But PR does not care about truth or falsehood, it will use anything. The last large analysis of a campaign that I know of is
from the Iraq war. You can find the report here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
Note the extent of the organisation, how many people and resources are involved. It's yuge. And the variation in types of stories. There can be speculation, fear mongering(which does not require lying, you just worry about possibilities), claims, plain false stories. It's a great analysis.
These people haven't been sitting on their asses since then.
In this case there's a campaign to ruin the relation with Russia and make it very hard for Trump to mend that(only russian stooges want better relations with russia).And to take away the focus from the content of the leaks, which were uh about what again?
With fake news there is little or no build up. It's just rumors made up of thin air. That's amateurish and low budget.
Real campaigns work on many fronts at once. Once you have official sources and favored journalists channelling anonymous sources you're instantly playing on another level.
In this case the trumped up charges are that the Russians made sure Trump was elected by hacking Podesta and DNC computers and passing them to wikileaks.
With a good campaign every reasonable person should start to doubt and think there must be really something to it.
Wikileaks say (reluctantly) that they got their data from the inside, not through hacking and not through the russians.
Suppose there's a hack. The reaction to is a choice. You can choose to minimize it. You can choose to respond in kind. Usually secret agencies would fight this out quietly. You can choose to take the opportunity to escalate the tensions as much as possible. That is clear intent.
In the old days I learned machine language, then assembler and then basic, all from the bottom up , but that was the seventies. Now on pcs assember is rarely needed and when it's used for performance reasons you can still question whether it's really needed. Hacking is different because you're trying to break things, you don't want to respect the interface and its safeties and errorhandling. On custom hardware though like modems I know assembler is used a lot.
People should indeed follow the link to the original intercept article because the article in Thehill is just bad.
Too complicated. Simpler
- implement system for police to take control over any vehicle so thieves and terrorists will no longer be able to flee and we'll finally be safe from bad people.
- then get an authorization key and access the system. Also, the only people overriding the external access will be..
What are they asking forgiveness for then? As far as I can see they don't consider the problem to be aggressive updating, but the occasional 'excessively aggressive updating'. That's an insignificant concession.
My feeling is it isn't worth investigating. Usually the idea is that 'science should thoroughly investigate whether claims like this are true'. That's why I mentioned science as investment: in that model you can't invest in everything so you have to choose. This falls off the list.
Valid argument. It was not a good list of possibilities because it was not intended as such.
Fine. But what the experiment tests is "it works". "This thing I set up here pushes. And I have a theory that it proves that hell will freeze over anytime now and you have to buy it together with the experiment!"
Then at least one should be able to buy the experiment without buying into the theory as well. That was this third option I mentioned.
Does that mean as a scientific investor I would think this experiment is worth investing in? I don't. Apparently some have made the calculus that 'slim chance of success but if successful yielding extremely high theoretical reward' makes it worthwhile.
I don't know and I don't care. The arguments I paid attention to were valid.
That's 'openended microwave generator' right, so everything gets out? Good argument.
Yeah. So now reread my post. I'm not arguing that maybe there is thrust with conservation of momentum. I'm saying that your differential diagnosis is lacking.
You're willing to put the law of conservation of energy on your list of possibilities , ranking it that as 'outrageously unlikely' but listable.
But the possibility that energy and momentum are getting out in a way that was overlooked, that you consider fairytale level and not even worth listing.
It should be the other way round at least.
So you'll sooner consider the hypothesis that conservation of momentum is broken than consider the hypothesis that there's radiation leaking in a place they haven't looked yet. No wonder you believe in unicorns.