Your facts are slightly off. The Earth gets about 1.3 kilowatts per sqaure meter from space. On a clear, sunny day, about 300 watts of that power is lost penetrating the atmosphere. Thus about 1 kw/m2 reaches the ground.
Now your calculation of the light fall-off rate pretty much agrees with my own. Titan is 9.55x the distance from the Sun as Earth. Given 1/r^2 falloff rate, Titan gets 1/91 the energy of the the Earth. That gives us a grand total of ~14 watts per square meter from space for Titan. Unfortunately, we don't know how much of that power reaches the surface. (That's one of the things Cassini is supposed to answer.) However, we do know that Titan's atmosphere is thicker than Earth, and that the visible light spectrum does not penetrate. Thus it is something of a forgone conclusion that very little of that 14 watts ever reaches Titan's surface.
In short, there simply isn't enough energy from the Sun to power life. If any life were to exist on Titan, it would have to receive its sustinance via geothermal energy. But how much geothermal energy is there? Even on Earth, a planet with a highly active core, there is insufficient heat to keep the surface from freezing. Without the Sun's power, Earth would be a dead planet. Titan's only hope is that its core is extremely high in materials like U235. This could cause a tremendous amount of heat from fission fires in its core.
Plenty of the Sun's light reaches Titan thanks to reflection over Saturn. Think of the Moon's light, multiplied by a few billions of billions of time.
It's not about "does light reach it or not". It's about how many watts of power is poured into it. If Titan doesn't receive enough energy, life can't grow. For example, your body burns plant and animal fuel to produce a constant 200 watts. Where are you going to get that power on Titan?
It isn't quite that easy. To date, we haven't seen a single form of life (save for microbes) that can survive that deep into the Solar System. Even Mars is downright balmy in comparison to Titan, but there is little sign that life does exist there or ever will.
The core of the problem is that life needs one thing above all else to survive: Energy. The star we call our Sun pumps terrawatts upon terrawatts of power into the Earth each day. Plants and some forms of microbes are able to take this energy and convert it into fuel stores. These fuel stores are then used to power all other life on the planet.
The problem with Titan is that it's probably lacking the energy necessary to sustain life. While the soil may be rich in "organic compounds" (i.e. the elements and minerals necessary for life as we know it) those compounds are of zero use if there isn't a sustainable energy source. And the Sun can't be that energy source since barely a few kilowatts of its energy reach Titan. That's not to say that Titan doesn't have some other energy source at its interior, but it is somewhat unlikely. In the end, it may be that Titan would make an excellent place from which to acquire raw materials as man expands into space. Difficult to find materials such as Nitrogen could be hurled from high up in the Sun's gravity well, to lower points such as Mars.
Projectors have high powered bulbs, precision optics, and a bunch of other very expensive components. This method works by scanning an individual laser and reflecting it to a surface. Thus the price shouldn't be too much higher than that of a stock laser pointer.
You've pretty much described an electoral college. Electoral College is basically a system whereby votes for a political system are delivered by peers (i.e. "college") rather than directly by the people. In the US, the college is designed so that each state gets X number of votes. It's up to the state to decide how those votes get allocated. (Interestingly enough, South Carolina used to decide its Presidential votes in the state government and did not poll the populace.)
In the case of India, (if I understand correctly) the electoral college is composed of Congressional representatives who may vote as they choose.
True. The technology would definitely be of much more use if it were combined with many other sensor technologies, and perhaps even multiple radar types and frequencies, so that a somewhat clearer picture can be resolved.
For example, noticing someone in a book depository wouldn't be suspicious, but noticing someone carrying around a large piece of metal inside in a book depository might be a cause for alarm.
A polite gentlemen farther up the thread explained that she declined her appointment after political parties pressured her due to Italian birth. CNN has some info on the situation.
Of course I will apologize! It was not my intent to portray India as a backward country, merely to ask for information on their system of government. If I offended anyone, I'm sorry. It was not my intent. Keep in mind that the US has never had a female President, so perhaps I should have said that it was a big step forward for the world. While India has (apparently) had a female Prime Minister before, it would have been a much more effective message this time around because of india's ever increasing importance in World Affairs.
Thank you for your polite reply. Most Slashdotters appear to think it's better to respond to an honest question in a condescending tone, rather than attempt to further the knowledge of others. I'm glad to see that there is at least one person willing to give helpful information.
It seems odd that India would choose to model their government in a sort of odd mix of a monarchy and democracy when they so strongly despised the British occupation. When India finally obtained their freedom, many other governmental systems had been tried around the world. Of course, with the effects of the great depression in recent memory, perhaps they did not want to model their government too much like a Rupublic?
Also, do you have any info on how India's electoral college works? The Wikipedia article is rather vague on that point. Does each Indian state decide its own method like in the US, or are votes decided by the appointed governor? The later would make for an odd feedback loop as the governor is apparently appointed by the President himself.
It's quite possible she was, or it's possible I simply misinterpreted her. (i.e. Maybe she was referring to the fact that the Prime Minister was from Italy.) If I knew a lot about the Indian political structure, I wouldn't be asking, now would I?
Thanks for your response. You provided some useful information. It's sounds like the "President's recommendation" is likely to be headed about as well as the EFFs. i.e. Some people will listen, some people will ignore him.
Also... India has the largest democracy in the world.. so calling them Monarchist is hardly fair.
I didn't call them Monarchist, I said that Prime Ministers usually went hand in hand with a Monarchy, thus my confusion. While the modern day Prime Minister of Britian is elected (and actually plays the role of a President), he used to be appointed to the position to carry out the rather general goals of the Monarchy.
Aren't you nice? It just so happens that I was standing next to a young Indian woman as the news was on CNN. (The place of business is a Financial Institute, so we actually have a TV.) She confirmed that it was indeed a big step for India, so I'm not exactly pulling this out of my rear. It's too bad she changed jobs recently or I'd simply ask her questions about India's political structure instead of dealing with the idiots on Slashdot.
...Indian's political structure? I seem to remember that a woman was just elected as Prime Minister (a big leap for India!). How does the Prime Minister relate to the President? What is their area of power? Is there a Parliament or Congress?
AFAIK, Prime Ministers have always been used in Monarchies instead of democracies. So I'm a bit confused here...:-/
Yeah.. it would be a shame to make Windows folks adjust to all that.
My point is that "all that" would simply be missing on a windows version, or wouldn't work as one expected.
If they can bring iTunes over from Mac OS 9.x it's a Carbon app, they can surely bring over Safari, which is a Cocoa app.
It's not a matter of "is it possible", it's a matter of "it wouldn't offer any of the advantages of the Mac version". Look at iTunes! That thing has to run 500 tiny daemons to operate as well as the Mac version, and then it still has to deal with the Windows concept of spreading files across the disk. It's basically an OK media player for Windows with the kick-ass advantage of accessing the Music Store. Nothing like the wonderful experience one gets on OS X.
Dag nabbit! You HAD to invoke Godwin's Law, didn't you? Now this thread is going to die because of some stupid comment that doesn't even make any sense.
Hitler: "Are there people in that building?!" Soldier: "Ya, heir Hitler!" Hitler: "Are they Jews?" Soldier: "How da hell should I know, heir Hitler?"
i've been thinking this would be a good time for Apple to release that Safari for Windows that's been rumored to be in the works.
I doubt that many people would use it. Safari's primary strength is that it fits into the OS X philosophy. i.e. Simple interface, spell checked entry fields, high security key stores, easy search access, etc. Pretty much all of that is provided by leaning on OS X. By introducing Safari to Windows, you'll take away most of the things that makes it interesting and useful. Windows philosophy is simply "different". Thus, Firefox fills this gap much better than Safari.
That's a bit more doubtful. One of the sniper's biggest advantages is his extreme distance (sometimes as far as miles away). Even a high powered military scope would have difficulty in finding the target at that range. However, that doesn't mean that you couldn't use it to target someone in the building next door. You'll have to be satisfied with increased risk, however.
All from 20 feet away? All you need is a building with a point 20 feet from the nearest walls, and the technology is rendered useless.
The handheld unit does 20 feet away. A heli powered unit might be more powerful. Besides, the advantage to a helicopter is that you CAN get within 20 feet to check. It slows down the sweep, but at least you can make sure that your President or foreign national is safe.
Slashdot Mirror
Your facts are slightly off. The Earth gets about 1.3 kilowatts per sqaure meter from space. On a clear, sunny day, about 300 watts of that power is lost penetrating the atmosphere. Thus about 1 kw/m2 reaches the ground.
Now your calculation of the light fall-off rate pretty much agrees with my own. Titan is 9.55x the distance from the Sun as Earth. Given 1/r^2 falloff rate, Titan gets 1/91 the energy of the the Earth. That gives us a grand total of ~14 watts per square meter from space for Titan. Unfortunately, we don't know how much of that power reaches the surface. (That's one of the things Cassini is supposed to answer.) However, we do know that Titan's atmosphere is thicker than Earth, and that the visible light spectrum does not penetrate. Thus it is something of a forgone conclusion that very little of that 14 watts ever reaches Titan's surface.
In short, there simply isn't enough energy from the Sun to power life. If any life were to exist on Titan, it would have to receive its sustinance via geothermal energy. But how much geothermal energy is there? Even on Earth, a planet with a highly active core, there is insufficient heat to keep the surface from freezing. Without the Sun's power, Earth would be a dead planet. Titan's only hope is that its core is extremely high in materials like U235. This could cause a tremendous amount of heat from fission fires in its core.
It was right here. The Washington Post and FlexBeta have just been playing catchup with my journal.
Bzzzt, probably wrong.
Probably?! I'm confident already.
Plenty of the Sun's light reaches Titan thanks to reflection over Saturn. Think of the Moon's light, multiplied by a few billions of billions of time.
It's not about "does light reach it or not". It's about how many watts of power is poured into it. If Titan doesn't receive enough energy, life can't grow. For example, your body burns plant and animal fuel to produce a constant 200 watts. Where are you going to get that power on Titan?
It isn't quite that easy. To date, we haven't seen a single form of life (save for microbes) that can survive that deep into the Solar System. Even Mars is downright balmy in comparison to Titan, but there is little sign that life does exist there or ever will.
The core of the problem is that life needs one thing above all else to survive: Energy. The star we call our Sun pumps terrawatts upon terrawatts of power into the Earth each day. Plants and some forms of microbes are able to take this energy and convert it into fuel stores. These fuel stores are then used to power all other life on the planet.
The problem with Titan is that it's probably lacking the energy necessary to sustain life. While the soil may be rich in "organic compounds" (i.e. the elements and minerals necessary for life as we know it) those compounds are of zero use if there isn't a sustainable energy source. And the Sun can't be that energy source since barely a few kilowatts of its energy reach Titan. That's not to say that Titan doesn't have some other energy source at its interior, but it is somewhat unlikely. In the end, it may be that Titan would make an excellent place from which to acquire raw materials as man expands into space. Difficult to find materials such as Nitrogen could be hurled from high up in the Sun's gravity well, to lower points such as Mars.
Projectors have high powered bulbs, precision optics, and a bunch of other very expensive components. This method works by scanning an individual laser and reflecting it to a surface. Thus the price shouldn't be too much higher than that of a stock laser pointer.
It's still an electoral college. The representatives having other responsibilities does not invalidate the structure of an electoral college.
You've pretty much described an electoral college. Electoral College is basically a system whereby votes for a political system are delivered by peers (i.e. "college") rather than directly by the people. In the US, the college is designed so that each state gets X number of votes. It's up to the state to decide how those votes get allocated. (Interestingly enough, South Carolina used to decide its Presidential votes in the state government and did not poll the populace.)
In the case of India, (if I understand correctly) the electoral college is composed of Congressional representatives who may vote as they choose.
True. The technology would definitely be of much more use if it were combined with many other sensor technologies, and perhaps even multiple radar types and frequencies, so that a somewhat clearer picture can be resolved.
For example, noticing someone in a book depository wouldn't be suspicious, but noticing someone carrying around a large piece of metal inside in a book depository might be a cause for alarm.
Its a parliamentary system like France, Canada, England, Australia etc.
:-)
So the electoral votes come from the Indian Congress, correct? Very interesting. Thank you.
Maybe the big step forward was getting rid of the hardcore nationalist BJP, rather than electing a party led by a woman.
Quite possibly.
The current prime minister of India is a man,
A polite gentlemen farther up the thread explained that she declined her appointment after political parties pressured her due to Italian birth. CNN has some info on the situation.
Of course I will apologize! It was not my intent to portray India as a backward country, merely to ask for information on their system of government. If I offended anyone, I'm sorry. It was not my intent. Keep in mind that the US has never had a female President, so perhaps I should have said that it was a big step forward for the world. While India has (apparently) had a female Prime Minister before, it would have been a much more effective message this time around because of india's ever increasing importance in World Affairs.
Thank you for your polite reply. Most Slashdotters appear to think it's better to respond to an honest question in a condescending tone, rather than attempt to further the knowledge of others. I'm glad to see that there is at least one person willing to give helpful information.
It seems odd that India would choose to model their government in a sort of odd mix of a monarchy and democracy when they so strongly despised the British occupation. When India finally obtained their freedom, many other governmental systems had been tried around the world. Of course, with the effects of the great depression in recent memory, perhaps they did not want to model their government too much like a Rupublic?
Also, do you have any info on how India's electoral college works? The Wikipedia article is rather vague on that point. Does each Indian state decide its own method like in the US, or are votes decided by the appointed governor? The later would make for an odd feedback loop as the governor is apparently appointed by the President himself.
It's quite possible she was, or it's possible I simply misinterpreted her. (i.e. Maybe she was referring to the fact that the Prime Minister was from Italy.) If I knew a lot about the Indian political structure, I wouldn't be asking, now would I?
Thanks for your response. You provided some useful information. It's sounds like the "President's recommendation" is likely to be headed about as well as the EFFs. i.e. Some people will listen, some people will ignore him.
Also... India has the largest democracy in the world.. so calling them Monarchist is hardly fair.
I didn't call them Monarchist, I said that Prime Ministers usually went hand in hand with a Monarchy, thus my confusion. While the modern day Prime Minister of Britian is elected (and actually plays the role of a President), he used to be appointed to the position to carry out the rather general goals of the Monarchy.
Aren't you nice? It just so happens that I was standing next to a young Indian woman as the news was on CNN. (The place of business is a Financial Institute, so we actually have a TV.) She confirmed that it was indeed a big step for India, so I'm not exactly pulling this out of my rear. It's too bad she changed jobs recently or I'd simply ask her questions about India's political structure instead of dealing with the idiots on Slashdot.
I was about to start planning my campaign for Viceroy of Georgia.
Except that Viceroys are appointed, not elected. Doh!
...Indian's political structure? I seem to remember that a woman was just elected as Prime Minister (a big leap for India!). How does the Prime Minister relate to the President? What is their area of power? Is there a Parliament or Congress?
:-/
AFAIK, Prime Ministers have always been used in Monarchies instead of democracies. So I'm a bit confused here...
Yeah.. it would be a shame to make Windows folks adjust to all that.
My point is that "all that" would simply be missing on a windows version, or wouldn't work as one expected.
If they can bring iTunes over from Mac OS 9.x it's a Carbon app, they can surely bring over Safari, which is a Cocoa app.
It's not a matter of "is it possible", it's a matter of "it wouldn't offer any of the advantages of the Mac version". Look at iTunes! That thing has to run 500 tiny daemons to operate as well as the Mac version, and then it still has to deal with the Windows concept of spreading files across the disk. It's basically an OK media player for Windows with the kick-ass advantage of accessing the Music Store. Nothing like the wonderful experience one gets on OS X.
Dag nabbit! You HAD to invoke Godwin's Law, didn't you? Now this thread is going to die because of some stupid comment that doesn't even make any sense.
Hitler: "Are there people in that building?!"
Soldier: "Ya, heir Hitler!"
Hitler: "Are they Jews?"
Soldier: "How da hell should I know, heir Hitler?"
I'll happily disagree with you just as soon as I figure out what you just said.
i've been thinking this would be a good time for Apple to release that Safari for Windows that's been rumored to be in the works.
I doubt that many people would use it. Safari's primary strength is that it fits into the OS X philosophy. i.e. Simple interface, spell checked entry fields, high security key stores, easy search access, etc. Pretty much all of that is provided by leaning on OS X. By introducing Safari to Windows, you'll take away most of the things that makes it interesting and useful. Windows philosophy is simply "different". Thus, Firefox fills this gap much better than Safari.
Correction, the range of the handheld unit is 20 meters. That's 65 feet.
That's a bit more doubtful. One of the sniper's biggest advantages is his extreme distance (sometimes as far as miles away). Even a high powered military scope would have difficulty in finding the target at that range. However, that doesn't mean that you couldn't use it to target someone in the building next door. You'll have to be satisfied with increased risk, however.
All from 20 feet away? All you need is a building with a point 20 feet from the nearest walls, and the technology is rendered useless.
The handheld unit does 20 feet away. A heli powered unit might be more powerful. Besides, the advantage to a helicopter is that you CAN get within 20 feet to check. It slows down the sweep, but at least you can make sure that your President or foreign national is safe.