That's actually a feasible concept. Especially since airship UAVs are very easy to construct, and could carry pretty heavy sensor and communications packages.:-)
You have to be kidding. An apache or a SAM could take it out
Eh? At 70,000 feet?! You've got to be kidding me. An Apache has a service ceiling of ~21,000 feet, and most SAMs are not designed to hit that altitude.
And once it goes stratospheric, you lose the advantage of close ground support.
Why would you use a blimp for close in ground support? That's what the A-10 Warthogs are for. I'm only suggesting that it provide an arial battlefield information center, that can get necessary info to the proper point in the battlefield when it's needed. Nothing more, nothing less.
You're better off with JSTARS patrolling the area.
JSTARS is just another sensor platform. It's purpose (AFAIK) is not for communicating with the grunts on the ground.
BTW, it's the MiG-25 FOXBAT that can reach those altitudes, not the MiG-29 and,
*scratches head* Now how the heck did that happen? I was looking at the Mig-25 specs, intending to type "Mig-25", and somehow typed "Mig-29". Hmm... Freudian slip? Anyway, thanks for the correction.:-)
I Know! We could use "Nucular" Zepplins! They could stay aloft for as long as a submarine can stay under water. They could launch cruise missles and control battlefield information.
Well, if the power is necessary, that's a viable option. But then you'd need a Zepplin with lifting power somewhere near that of the CargoLifter.
We could put squads of HILO jumper Marines on them to hit trouble spots and drop pallets of food on indigenous people to win hearts and minds. We only crushed a few when we did that..
Am I getting the impression that you're making fun of me? No matter. A dirigible offers distinct advantages over planes. It can stay up longer (nothing forces it to come down), fly out of enemy attack range, provide advanced communications relays (cell phones?:-)), and hover over a battlefield area.
So, fighting insurgency starts at home and it is just an insurgency. No need to spend any more money there than we do on the LAPD.
Insurgency is a whole different issue. I'm more concerned about the issues they had during the war itself.
Who gives a damn? The guy used nerve gas on his own city, pushed little kids out of helicopters, randomly terrorized his people with the police force, turned a blind eye to his kids raping women, and a lot of other crap that the body count just doesn't do justice to!
America killed at least 100,000 in 2 years. I'd be willing to say America has the higher rate of killing Iraqi civillians.
Listen up, you sanctimonious son of a bitch: The US troops aren't killing people. The remnants of Saddam's forces are. Just like they've done for the last two DECADES. Only now, assholes like you blame it on people like my brother who are PROTECTING people over there. He nearly lost his life protecting Iraqis on MANY occasions. And you know what? The IRAQIS are THANKFUL he's there. In fact, civilian support is one of the few things that keeps him alive.
So get off your GODDAMN high horse, and recognize that the US has actually DONE A GOOD THING. You can argue with the reasons for starting the war, but don't you DARE blame deaths caused by Saddam's regime on our troops.
Ok moderators, I've said my peace. Do your worst.:-/
Actually, if you read the article, they're doing USACE type stuff. Examples given were load-bearing estimates, structural damage estimates, trajectory calculations, etc. Absolutely none of the stuff your average PC geek would do. It seems that when Wired picked up the story they decided that it needed more of a "geek" spin to it. *shrug*
Indeed. I actually think this makes a lot of sense. Information is ALWAYS a big problem on the battlefield, but getting the pertinent information is even more important. Having a "tech on call" for various engineering matters provides the troops with an advantage similar to that of getting the Army Corp of Engineers out there. (Need to cross a river? Build a bridge!:-))
My only thought is that this should be extended much further. Instead of just "techie" issues, there should be something similar to the Naval concept of a Combat Information Center. You see, on a ship of war, all information flows through the CIC. It's the responsibility of those in CIC to process the information and route the results and guesstimations on to the proper area of the ship or fleet. Now imagine if we stuck a Zepplin above the heads of our troops.
It could fly high enough to be out of range of just about everything except a Mig-29, and provide a line-of-sight communications center. The Zepplin could take information from onboard sensors, satellite readings, intel, other ground troops, and a variety of other sources, then route the most important information and estimates to the battlefield.
I have developed lots of applications that are over 1 gig for a download with a database
I was referring to DBMSes like Sybase, DB2, or Oracle. I can't figure out WHY the hell they have installs of a gigabyte or larger. You've got code (ok), then you've got supporting applications (ok). But none of those should add up to more than a few hundred megs. Documentation, perhaps, but I haven't exactly seen anything *worth* that gig or so of disk space. Even if you tell the installer to only install the core database engine (no sample data, no docs, no applications, etc.), you still have a few hundred megs of install space! How inefficiently can they code?
Maybe you should write about what you know, and not be an Andrew Tanenbaum.
Maybe you should be a little more polite. If you don't understand something, you can always ask "what were you talking about, exactly?" and you'll probably get a polite answer.
Actually, I believe the estimation was 125 billion. But according to this, there are only 3000 observed galaxies. Which means that it's great for those who push out into unknown space, but the rest of us are screwed.
Let me get this straight. You believe that accelerating a 5000 ton spaceship at 1 G for 25,000 years is more than the power output of the sun?
Ummm... yes. A few BOTE calculations shows that the entire sun puts out somewhere around 8.0e23 watts. From here, a 30,000 light year trip would take 62 tonnes of antimatter per kilogram. 62 tonnes of antimatter times 5000 tonnes of ship works out to 5.58e28 Joules of energy. (I'd work it out for exactly 25,000 lightyears, but it's late, and I'm lazy.)
Now if you could collect ALL of the Sun's output for 19 hours AND convert it to antimatter with 100% efficiecy, you could reach that amount of energy. Unfortunately, the later will never be the case, even if the former is. Converting Solar Energy to Antimatter can never be more than 50% efficient. Currently, it's about 0.0000001% or so. Best estimates put antimatter conversion at about 0.01% with current technology. At 0.01%, you'd need all of the Sun's output for 80 days to reach the necessary level of antimatter.
In short, outstripping our Sun's output is not that hard. If you were thinking that I was referring to extinguishing our Sun, then I apologize for the miscommunication.
How is your 5000 ton spaceship carrying the energy for 1 G acceleration? After all, it only has 5000 tons of mass to begin with.
Whenever ships are discussed, their mass is always referred to in terms of "dry mass" unless specified otherwise. Our ship would need a disposable stage or ten to carry the extra 620,000 tonnes of matter and antimatter.:-)
Regardless, it's a bizarre concept to discuss in the first place
No, I'm merely trying to point out the rediculous energy requirements for doing a little space population. My original point being that all energy in the universe is finite, and that we will eventually bump into that little snafu.
Am I to understand you that we should not pursue nuclear energy here on Earth because it's hard to make big things move interstellar distances at near-light speed?
On the contrary. I am merely attempting to shed light on the issue of limited energy reserves. There's a LOT of energy in the universe, but not so much as to be unable to fathom real uses for it.
We are mining one tiny facet of Earth's fuel stores almost to the point of it being inconvenient to mine more. Depletion? Someday. 50-100 years. But we'll be getting smarter, and production costs will continue to go down.
I agree completely. I am merely comparing what we do on Earth to a galactic scale.
We're not going to be going far on sublight vessels, that's for sure.
Now that, I don't actually believe. We understand antimatter, and we have the Sun sitting right next to us. Give us some time and we'll figure out how to start producing enough antimatter for a five year trip to Proxima Centauri. Give it some time to work out the technology, and ships really could visit other galaxies. (Not that anyone here on Earth would notice.)
You'd probably end up with two very different cultures. The culture that thrives here on Earth, and the culture that planet hops the Universe, looking for places to plant colonies.
The power output of one sun, or even a million suns, is a trivial fraction of a fraction of the energy available in this galaxy, let alone the Universe.
How many galaxies are we aware of? A hundred or so? Maybe a few hundred? Granted, there may be more beyond the edge of the known Universe, but life won't be so great for those left in the known universe.
But, in the next 100 years, that question is totally immaterial. The Romans couldn't wring their hands about how hard it would be to get to the moon, because they had about zero of the required technologies. Now, it's a relatively straightforward (though challenging) engineering process.
Relativity? Yeah. It's a problem. Round trips are not feasible. That's the way the Universe crumbles.
It's just painful to think about, that's all. Travelling at relativistic speeds means that you're travelling through an unreversable time warp. At those space-time "speeds", the death of the Universe is barely a few generations down the road.:-)
None of the videos you mention as examples can be legally downloaded without the permission of all the copyright holders.
For example, in the case of Star Trek fan videos, you'd also probably need permission from the holders of the copyright for Star Trek itself (Paramount, IIRC).
Legal, with explicit permission from Roddenbery's estate.
Other videos such as "Starship Exeter" and "Hidden Frontier" are of questionable nature for the producers (their copyright), but legal for you to download. Remember, the people you are getting it from have a copyright of their own, which they may exercise. The only issue is that they may liable for infringing on other's intellectual rights.
As for the Presidential Debates, there are several places where you can get them with the full permission of the copyright holder. Same thing with commericals. e.g. As a viral marketing technique, Accenture provided their videos to the public after they changed their name from Anderson Consulting.
You should probably review your list. It's not legal to torrent things unless:
My list generally assumes that the copyright holders are the ones distributing the work. Examples: Xandros Free ISO, Developing for the Mozilla Platform eBook, Firebird Database, and America's Army.
In short, there are plenty of legal uses for BitTorrent. Legal issues still exist, but no more so than any other downloadable content.
It's all relative. Right now we're mining the Earth's fuel stores to the point of depletion. But we're only working at a scale of the Earth. Now do some BOTE calculations on how much energy it would take to send a 5,000 tonne starship on a 1 G constant acceleration trip to Wolf 359. How much energy would it take to reach Sirius? Sigma Draconis? Upsilon Andromedae?
So far, that's only 44 light years! What if we wanted to visit another galaxy altogether? Say, Canis Major? That's a mere 25,000 light years. Do the calculations. We've already outstripped our own Sun's output by a pretty good margin. Now what if we have dozens of starships? Hundreds of starships?
Space is pretty damn big, but so are the energy requirements for moving mass A to point B. It doesn't take much to start thinking of energy on a galactic scale. You and I could get on a spaceship bound for Barnards Galaxy and get back in about 50 years. By the time we got back, our Sun and Solar System would be noticeably different. It's even possible that all our friendly stops (Earth for example) would have been ripped out of their orbit and would be no longer inhabitable.
Thinking on those scales is extremely sobering.:-/
Doesn't it make more sense to get these from "the source"?
In case you haven't been paying attention, the "source" is usually providing the torrent. (Go to any major Linux distribution to check. I dare you.)
The gutenburg mirrors seem like the best place for this.
But God-aweful slow. Distributing the bandwidth allows for a larger number of files to be moved faster.
Might as well add that with BT there is a chance that your GTA demo is really a mis-labelled Halo demo.
Again, many of these torrents are now provided by "the source". Since they seed the torrent, you can be sure that it's properly labeled. Improper labeling is usually a side-effect of getting it from "questionable" channels.
Google would be better for most of this.
Poppycock. Google only caches HTML. It's difficult to say if even they have the bandwidth to cache multimedia files.
For most of this, it makes more sense to get the files elsewhere. For now, BT makes the most sense for copyright infringement materials, where for the most part no-one dares to host them on typical static web pages or download sites.
Again, this is poppycock. PDF files can be *huge* for freely available information. "The BeFS FileSystem" and "Mozilla Platform Developers Guide" are just two examples off the top of my head. And only a few months ago, I mirrored creative commons PDFs for Slashdot, although I don't remember what they were.
Linux and BSD ISOs (duh) Video Game Demos (those things are getting huge!) eBook Collections (e.g. Gutenburg) Publicly Available Videos (e.g. Star Trek fan videos, Presidential Debates, funny commercials) Software Distribution (How can a database application be more 1 gig in size?!) Website Content Mirrors (e.g. PDFs, promotional videos, images, etc.)
That's a LOT of content right there. Can anyone think of items I'm missing?
I assume a matter/anti-matter reaction would be similar but produces way more power than nuclear fission.
That's a bad assumption. Fission works by making the atom too heavy and subsequently causing it to fall to pieces (i.e. spilt). This reaction produces enormous amounts of heat and kinetic energy in the form of radiation.
Antimatter is different. When a normal particle and anti-particle intersect, they demolish each other. The end result is a 100% conversion of both into energetic particles (e.g. photons). It's worth noting that Antimatter is the only method we're currently aware of that will get a spaceship to high percentages of light speed. All other fuels are simply too heavy for the amount of energy they produce.
The only reason why we don't switch to an "antimatter economy" is that we have no antimatter stores. All the antimatter we possess is created in a super-collider. This process takes gigajoules of power just to produce a few antiparticles! In fact, we've got about enough anti-particles to power a 100 watt bulb for three minutes. Considering the power of antimatter, that's not much.:-/
Are you perhaps thinking of this study? It says that there is 40 year supply of Uranium at < $80/kg, but at least a 100 year overall supply of the material.
Given 2nd law of thermodynamics all energy sources are finite, and will eventually run out.
Once one truly understands this, one finds that it is an extremely sobering revelation. You see, to achieve high-speed interstellar travel, we need energy stores equivalent to the Sun's output. If we started building these ships, we'll notice a few results:
1. We'd begin to make a noticeable dent in the amount of usable energy in the Universe, thus decreasing the time until there are no more fuels or other usable energy in the Universe.
2. After a "short trip" to another galaxy (say a few years there, a few years back), you'd return to find our Sun and Earth both long gone. (Isn't relativity a bitch?:-/)
As a true Star Trek fan, I feel compelled to point out that Dilithium Crystals do not generate power. Rather, they capture the energy released in matter/antimatter annihilation. Thus the correct answer is "antimatter". I suggest that you sweep the issue of *where* the antimatter comes from under the rug.:-)
2. There's nothing in thermodynamics that precludes a 100% conversion into energetic particles. For example, antimatter achieves this without violating any physical laws.
3. The amount of waste would be a small percentage of the starting amount. So for every *ton* of fuel (that's one HELL of a lot of energy!), you'd end up with a few dozen kilograms of stuff left. Of the remaining "waste", a large portion of it would be stable materials.
100years a long time but it's still finite. If it took 30 years to do a transiton you would only have 30 years before you would need to do the next one.
1. You're making an assumption based on time, not quantity. I said that we'd have 100 years if ALL power was switched over today. If it takes a transition (which it will), you'll have an extended life time.
2, You ignored my point about reprocessing and other fission methods. Reprocessing fuel leads to MORE energy than was originally extracted from the Uranium, and fission plants can be built from materials such as Thorium and Radium.
3. Nuclear materials can be replenished from elsewhere in the solar system. It is the only fuel we currently use of which this is true.
Aside from that, there is a minimum size to creating a nuclear reactor. Not sure exactly what it is, but it isn't as compact as a gas generator.
Actually, it doesn't take all that much material. You can get fission from a VERY compact amount of material. The real problem comes out of radiation shielding. Fission produces extreme amounts of radiation (by design), and thus requires a great deal of shielding for every reactor. Control and safety systems add to the size of the reactor. Add in the turbines, and you've got your final size.
I could see "portable" (ha ha) reactors being useful for office building, cruise and merchant ships, and fuel generation facilities (e.g. hydrogen). Placing one in a typical suburban backyard would leave you without much of a backyard. OTOH, a neighborhood reactor (akin to local power stations) could be a viable choice.
Or deregulate Nuclear energy completely. [...] So, what we need is for the scientists to come up with mini nuclear reactors people can keep in their back yards. People can buy plutonium rods from the local supermarket, or maybe gas station if there's an issue with safety storing them (as there is with oil), take them home, insert into reactor, and spend another few months with plenty of power.
That's a *really* BAD idea. Uranium and Plutonium can and will spontaneously fission (as in chain reaction fission) if too much of it is put close enough together. While you're not going to see any BOOM like you did at Chernobyl (damn PWR boiler designs), you will see amazing amounts of heat and radiation. Anyone standing near to that is going to be turned to a crispy critter by one or the other.
On the bright side, the stuff would melt into the soil and stop fissioning. Within a few days to weeks, the material would be probably cool enough for a clean up crew wearing protective suits.
It's, according to the advocates, completely safe,
It is safe, as long as it's properly handled. Much like Ammonia and Bleach are safe, but become deadly when mixed. Natural Gas is safe, but can blow you sky high if improperly handled. Gasoline is *extremely* safe, but can cause a fire if it's left in open containers (the fumes are the real problem).
Basically, I'd feel safe about neighborhood and small town reactors as long as they have proper containment and safety systems, and are installed by professionals. I certainly do NOT want your average person purchasing Plutonium rods, nor do I want your $6.00/hr stock-boy putting them on shelves. *shudder*
It should be reused for fuel. This allows a reactor to get more energy out of less nuclear material, resulting in both reduced cost and waste. The only reason why the US doesn't do this, is the concern over terrorists or spies obtaining bomb-grade materials.
2) Do we have enough fissionable fuel to accomplish this?
The estimates are that we'd have a ~100 year supply of Uranium if all power was switched to nuclear power today. This figure does not take reprocessing and non-uranium fission into account.
Slashdot Mirror
That's actually a feasible concept. Especially since airship UAVs are very easy to construct, and could carry pretty heavy sensor and communications packages. :-)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. :-)
You have to be kidding. An apache or a SAM could take it out
Eh? At 70,000 feet?! You've got to be kidding me. An Apache has a service ceiling of ~21,000 feet, and most SAMs are not designed to hit that altitude.
And once it goes stratospheric, you lose the advantage of close ground support.
Why would you use a blimp for close in ground support? That's what the A-10 Warthogs are for. I'm only suggesting that it provide an arial battlefield information center, that can get necessary info to the proper point in the battlefield when it's needed. Nothing more, nothing less.
You're better off with JSTARS patrolling the area.
JSTARS is just another sensor platform. It's purpose (AFAIK) is not for communicating with the grunts on the ground.
BTW, it's the MiG-25 FOXBAT that can reach those altitudes, not the MiG-29 and,
:-)
:-)), and hover over a battlefield area.
*scratches head* Now how the heck did that happen? I was looking at the Mig-25 specs, intending to type "Mig-25", and somehow typed "Mig-29". Hmm... Freudian slip? Anyway, thanks for the correction.
I Know! We could use "Nucular" Zepplins! They could stay aloft for as long as a submarine can stay under water. They could launch cruise missles and control battlefield information.
Well, if the power is necessary, that's a viable option. But then you'd need a Zepplin with lifting power somewhere near that of the CargoLifter.
We could put squads of HILO jumper Marines on them to hit trouble spots and drop pallets of food on indigenous people to win hearts and minds. We only crushed a few when we did that..
Am I getting the impression that you're making fun of me? No matter. A dirigible offers distinct advantages over planes. It can stay up longer (nothing forces it to come down), fly out of enemy attack range, provide advanced communications relays (cell phones?
So, fighting insurgency starts at home and it is just an insurgency. No need to spend any more money there than we do on the LAPD.
Insurgency is a whole different issue. I'm more concerned about the issues they had during the war itself.
Over how many years?
:-/
Who gives a damn? The guy used nerve gas on his own city, pushed little kids out of helicopters, randomly terrorized his people with the police force, turned a blind eye to his kids raping women, and a lot of other crap that the body count just doesn't do justice to!
America killed at least 100,000 in 2 years. I'd be willing to say America has the higher rate of killing Iraqi civillians.
Listen up, you sanctimonious son of a bitch: The US troops aren't killing people. The remnants of Saddam's forces are. Just like they've done for the last two DECADES. Only now, assholes like you blame it on people like my brother who are PROTECTING people over there. He nearly lost his life protecting Iraqis on MANY occasions. And you know what? The IRAQIS are THANKFUL he's there. In fact, civilian support is one of the few things that keeps him alive.
So get off your GODDAMN high horse, and recognize that the US has actually DONE A GOOD THING. You can argue with the reasons for starting the war, but don't you DARE blame deaths caused by Saddam's regime on our troops.
Ok moderators, I've said my peace. Do your worst.
Nooo... that would be how we sell surplus (and outdated) gear. Outsourcing is referred to as "mercenaries for hire", a.k.a. "soldiers of fortune".
Actually, if you read the article, they're doing USACE type stuff. Examples given were load-bearing estimates, structural damage estimates, trajectory calculations, etc. Absolutely none of the stuff your average PC geek would do. It seems that when Wired picked up the story they decided that it needed more of a "geek" spin to it. *shrug*
Indeed. I actually think this makes a lot of sense. Information is ALWAYS a big problem on the battlefield, but getting the pertinent information is even more important. Having a "tech on call" for various engineering matters provides the troops with an advantage similar to that of getting the Army Corp of Engineers out there. (Need to cross a river? Build a bridge! :-))
My only thought is that this should be extended much further. Instead of just "techie" issues, there should be something similar to the Naval concept of a Combat Information Center. You see, on a ship of war, all information flows through the CIC. It's the responsibility of those in CIC to process the information and route the results and guesstimations on to the proper area of the ship or fleet. Now imagine if we stuck a Zepplin above the heads of our troops.
It could fly high enough to be out of range of just about everything except a Mig-29, and provide a line-of-sight communications center. The Zepplin could take information from onboard sensors, satellite readings, intel, other ground troops, and a variety of other sources, then route the most important information and estimates to the battlefield.
I have developed lots of applications that are over 1 gig for a download with a database
I was referring to DBMSes like Sybase, DB2, or Oracle. I can't figure out WHY the hell they have installs of a gigabyte or larger. You've got code (ok), then you've got supporting applications (ok). But none of those should add up to more than a few hundred megs. Documentation, perhaps, but I haven't exactly seen anything *worth* that gig or so of disk space. Even if you tell the installer to only install the core database engine (no sample data, no docs, no applications, etc.), you still have a few hundred megs of install space! How inefficiently can they code?
Maybe you should write about what you know, and not be an Andrew Tanenbaum.
Maybe you should be a little more polite. If you don't understand something, you can always ask "what were you talking about, exactly?" and you'll probably get a polite answer.
Have they found the Quad Damage yet, or are those on Demos with the BFG9000?
Try 100 billion.
:-)
Actually, I believe the estimation was 125 billion. But according to this, there are only 3000 observed galaxies. Which means that it's great for those who push out into unknown space, but the rest of us are screwed.
Let me get this straight. You believe that accelerating a 5000 ton spaceship at 1 G for 25,000 years is more than the power output of the sun?
Ummm... yes. A few BOTE calculations shows that the entire sun puts out somewhere around 8.0e23 watts. From here, a 30,000 light year trip would take 62 tonnes of antimatter per kilogram. 62 tonnes of antimatter times 5000 tonnes of ship works out to 5.58e28 Joules of energy. (I'd work it out for exactly 25,000 lightyears, but it's late, and I'm lazy.)
Now if you could collect ALL of the Sun's output for 19 hours AND convert it to antimatter with 100% efficiecy, you could reach that amount of energy. Unfortunately, the later will never be the case, even if the former is. Converting Solar Energy to Antimatter can never be more than 50% efficient. Currently, it's about 0.0000001% or so. Best estimates put antimatter conversion at about 0.01% with current technology. At 0.01%, you'd need all of the Sun's output for 80 days to reach the necessary level of antimatter.
In short, outstripping our Sun's output is not that hard. If you were thinking that I was referring to extinguishing our Sun, then I apologize for the miscommunication.
How is your 5000 ton spaceship carrying the energy for 1 G acceleration? After all, it only has 5000 tons of mass to begin with.
Whenever ships are discussed, their mass is always referred to in terms of "dry mass" unless specified otherwise. Our ship would need a disposable stage or ten to carry the extra 620,000 tonnes of matter and antimatter.
Regardless, it's a bizarre concept to discuss in the first place
No, I'm merely trying to point out the rediculous energy requirements for doing a little space population. My original point being that all energy in the universe is finite, and that we will eventually bump into that little snafu.
Am I to understand you that we should not pursue nuclear energy here on Earth because it's hard to make big things move interstellar distances at near-light speed?
:-)
On the contrary. I am merely attempting to shed light on the issue of limited energy reserves. There's a LOT of energy in the universe, but not so much as to be unable to fathom real uses for it.
We are mining one tiny facet of Earth's fuel stores almost to the point of it being inconvenient to mine more. Depletion? Someday. 50-100 years. But we'll be getting smarter, and production costs will continue to go down.
I agree completely. I am merely comparing what we do on Earth to a galactic scale.
We're not going to be going far on sublight vessels, that's for sure.
Now that, I don't actually believe. We understand antimatter, and we have the Sun sitting right next to us. Give us some time and we'll figure out how to start producing enough antimatter for a five year trip to Proxima Centauri. Give it some time to work out the technology, and ships really could visit other galaxies. (Not that anyone here on Earth would notice.)
You'd probably end up with two very different cultures. The culture that thrives here on Earth, and the culture that planet hops the Universe, looking for places to plant colonies.
The power output of one sun, or even a million suns, is a trivial fraction of a fraction of the energy available in this galaxy, let alone the Universe.
How many galaxies are we aware of? A hundred or so? Maybe a few hundred? Granted, there may be more beyond the edge of the known Universe, but life won't be so great for those left in the known universe.
But, in the next 100 years, that question is totally immaterial. The Romans couldn't wring their hands about how hard it would be to get to the moon, because they had about zero of the required technologies. Now, it's a relatively straightforward (though challenging) engineering process.
Relativity? Yeah. It's a problem. Round trips are not feasible. That's the way the Universe crumbles.
It's just painful to think about, that's all. Travelling at relativistic speeds means that you're travelling through an unreversable time warp. At those space-time "speeds", the death of the Universe is barely a few generations down the road.
None of the videos you mention as examples can be legally downloaded without the permission of all the copyright holders.
For example, in the case of Star Trek fan videos, you'd also probably need permission from the holders of the copyright for Star Trek itself (Paramount, IIRC).
Legal, with explicit permission from Roddenbery's estate.
Legal, under parody laws.
Other videos such as "Starship Exeter" and "Hidden Frontier" are of questionable nature for the producers (their copyright), but legal for you to download. Remember, the people you are getting it from have a copyright of their own, which they may exercise. The only issue is that they may liable for infringing on other's intellectual rights.
As for the Presidential Debates, there are several places where you can get them with the full permission of the copyright holder. Same thing with commericals. e.g. As a viral marketing technique, Accenture provided their videos to the public after they changed their name from Anderson Consulting.
You should probably review your list. It's not legal to torrent things unless:
My list generally assumes that the copyright holders are the ones distributing the work. Examples: Xandros Free ISO, Developing for the Mozilla Platform eBook, Firebird Database, and America's Army.
In short, there are plenty of legal uses for BitTorrent. Legal issues still exist, but no more so than any other downloadable content.
It's all relative. Right now we're mining the Earth's fuel stores to the point of depletion. But we're only working at a scale of the Earth. Now do some BOTE calculations on how much energy it would take to send a 5,000 tonne starship on a 1 G constant acceleration trip to Wolf 359. How much energy would it take to reach Sirius? Sigma Draconis? Upsilon Andromedae?
:-/
So far, that's only 44 light years! What if we wanted to visit another galaxy altogether? Say, Canis Major? That's a mere 25,000 light years. Do the calculations. We've already outstripped our own Sun's output by a pretty good margin. Now what if we have dozens of starships? Hundreds of starships?
Space is pretty damn big, but so are the energy requirements for moving mass A to point B. It doesn't take much to start thinking of energy on a galactic scale. You and I could get on a spaceship bound for Barnards Galaxy and get back in about 50 years. By the time we got back, our Sun and Solar System would be noticeably different. It's even possible that all our friendly stops (Earth for example) would have been ripped out of their orbit and would be no longer inhabitable.
Thinking on those scales is extremely sobering.
Cynical, aren't we?
Doesn't it make more sense to get these from "the source"?
In case you haven't been paying attention, the "source" is usually providing the torrent. (Go to any major Linux distribution to check. I dare you.)
The gutenburg mirrors seem like the best place for this.
But God-aweful slow. Distributing the bandwidth allows for a larger number of files to be moved faster.
Might as well add that with BT there is a chance that your GTA demo is really a mis-labelled Halo demo.
Again, many of these torrents are now provided by "the source". Since they seed the torrent, you can be sure that it's properly labeled. Improper labeling is usually a side-effect of getting it from "questionable" channels.
Google would be better for most of this.
Poppycock. Google only caches HTML. It's difficult to say if even they have the bandwidth to cache multimedia files.
For most of this, it makes more sense to get the files elsewhere. For now, BT makes the most sense for copyright infringement materials, where for the most part no-one dares to host them on typical static web pages or download sites.
Again, this is poppycock. PDF files can be *huge* for freely available information. "The BeFS FileSystem" and "Mozilla Platform Developers Guide" are just two examples off the top of my head. And only a few months ago, I mirrored creative commons PDFs for Slashdot, although I don't remember what they were.
That's a LOT of content right there. Can anyone think of items I'm missing?
I assume a matter/anti-matter reaction would be similar but produces way more power than nuclear fission.
:-/
That's a bad assumption. Fission works by making the atom too heavy and subsequently causing it to fall to pieces (i.e. spilt). This reaction produces enormous amounts of heat and kinetic energy in the form of radiation.
Antimatter is different. When a normal particle and anti-particle intersect, they demolish each other. The end result is a 100% conversion of both into energetic particles (e.g. photons). It's worth noting that Antimatter is the only method we're currently aware of that will get a spaceship to high percentages of light speed. All other fuels are simply too heavy for the amount of energy they produce.
The only reason why we don't switch to an "antimatter economy" is that we have no antimatter stores. All the antimatter we possess is created in a super-collider. This process takes gigajoules of power just to produce a few antiparticles! In fact, we've got about enough anti-particles to power a 100 watt bulb for three minutes. Considering the power of antimatter, that's not much.
Are you perhaps thinking of this study? It says that there is 40 year supply of Uranium at < $80/kg, but at least a 100 year overall supply of the material.
Given 2nd law of thermodynamics all energy sources are finite, and will eventually run out.
:-/)
Once one truly understands this, one finds that it is an extremely sobering revelation. You see, to achieve high-speed interstellar travel, we need energy stores equivalent to the Sun's output. If we started building these ships, we'll notice a few results:
1. We'd begin to make a noticeable dent in the amount of usable energy in the Universe, thus decreasing the time until there are no more fuels or other usable energy in the Universe.
2. After a "short trip" to another galaxy (say a few years there, a few years back), you'd return to find our Sun and Earth both long gone. (Isn't relativity a bitch?
As a true Star Trek fan, I feel compelled to point out that Dilithium Crystals do not generate power. Rather, they capture the energy released in matter/antimatter annihilation. Thus the correct answer is "antimatter". I suggest that you sweep the issue of *where* the antimatter comes from under the rug. :-)
You still end up with waste. See: thermodinamics
1. That's "thermodynamics".
2. There's nothing in thermodynamics that precludes a 100% conversion into energetic particles. For example, antimatter achieves this without violating any physical laws.
3. The amount of waste would be a small percentage of the starting amount. So for every *ton* of fuel (that's one HELL of a lot of energy!), you'd end up with a few dozen kilograms of stuff left. Of the remaining "waste", a large portion of it would be stable materials.
100years a long time but it's still finite. If it took 30 years to do a transiton you would only have 30 years before you would need to do the next one.
1. You're making an assumption based on time, not quantity. I said that we'd have 100 years if ALL power was switched over today. If it takes a transition (which it will), you'll have an extended life time.
2, You ignored my point about reprocessing and other fission methods. Reprocessing fuel leads to MORE energy than was originally extracted from the Uranium, and fission plants can be built from materials such as Thorium and Radium.
3. Nuclear materials can be replenished from elsewhere in the solar system. It is the only fuel we currently use of which this is true.
Aside from that, there is a minimum size to creating a nuclear reactor. Not sure exactly what it is, but it isn't as compact as a gas generator.
Actually, it doesn't take all that much material. You can get fission from a VERY compact amount of material. The real problem comes out of radiation shielding. Fission produces extreme amounts of radiation (by design), and thus requires a great deal of shielding for every reactor. Control and safety systems add to the size of the reactor. Add in the turbines, and you've got your final size.
I could see "portable" (ha ha) reactors being useful for office building, cruise and merchant ships, and fuel generation facilities (e.g. hydrogen). Placing one in a typical suburban backyard would leave you without much of a backyard. OTOH, a neighborhood reactor (akin to local power stations) could be a viable choice.
Or deregulate Nuclear energy completely. [...] So, what we need is for the scientists to come up with mini nuclear reactors people can keep in their back yards. People can buy plutonium rods from the local supermarket, or maybe gas station if there's an issue with safety storing them (as there is with oil), take them home, insert into reactor, and spend another few months with plenty of power.
That's a *really* BAD idea. Uranium and Plutonium can and will spontaneously fission (as in chain reaction fission) if too much of it is put close enough together. While you're not going to see any BOOM like you did at Chernobyl (damn PWR boiler designs), you will see amazing amounts of heat and radiation. Anyone standing near to that is going to be turned to a crispy critter by one or the other.
On the bright side, the stuff would melt into the soil and stop fissioning. Within a few days to weeks, the material would be probably cool enough for a clean up crew wearing protective suits.
It's, according to the advocates, completely safe,
It is safe, as long as it's properly handled. Much like Ammonia and Bleach are safe, but become deadly when mixed. Natural Gas is safe, but can blow you sky high if improperly handled. Gasoline is *extremely* safe, but can cause a fire if it's left in open containers (the fumes are the real problem).
Basically, I'd feel safe about neighborhood and small town reactors as long as they have proper containment and safety systems, and are installed by professionals. I certainly do NOT want your average person purchasing Plutonium rods, nor do I want your $6.00/hr stock-boy putting them on shelves. *shudder*
1) What will we do with the waste?
It should be reused for fuel. This allows a reactor to get more energy out of less nuclear material, resulting in both reduced cost and waste. The only reason why the US doesn't do this, is the concern over terrorists or spies obtaining bomb-grade materials.
2) Do we have enough fissionable fuel to accomplish this?
The estimates are that we'd have a ~100 year supply of Uranium if all power was switched to nuclear power today. This figure does not take reprocessing and non-uranium fission into account.
No, but they bit rot.