As to it taking less fuel to get to mars then the moon... How? Just explain how that is possible.
I'm quite certain you could "throw" things from the moon to the earth. So the return trip wouldn't even take fuel. You could literally just give it a push. And the moon is quite a bit closer than mars... so why does that take less fuel?
As to the surface being a horrible place... so is mars. The Marian atmosphere is a joke. There is basically just enough there in the words of JPL that "you have to deal with it or it will destroy your space craft"... but basically that's all it does. Its not enough to appreciably reduce radiation to the surface. So you're going to want to be underground on Mars as well.
Keep in mind, there are three reasons to go underground.
1. Radiation. 2. meteorites 3. temperature shifts.
You go down and you don't have to deal with any of that. The radiation is as low as on the earth or less. No threat from anything but giant meteors. And the temperature should be the same all time.
As to why not do it on earth? That question doesn't even make sense. I wouldn't do it on the earth because I can walk around naked on the surface of the earth without risking anything but possibly getting throw in jail for indecency.
So why would I do that?
On the moon, there is no atmosphere, there are little bullets flying through the air all the time that will kill me, there are massive temperature shifts, and quite a bit of radiation.
If I burrow down then I can inflate a shelter or spray plastic on the walls of a hollowed out area. I can then pressurize and know that it will probably be safe even if it is only a couple millimeters thick. If I were on the surface the walls of my enclosure would have to be a lot thicker.
It simply isn't practical to do anything but burrow. You burrow and you basically get a very insulated enclosure without having to bring all that insulation with you. You just use the moon rock/dust to shield your habitat.
I really don't understand you comment. Please explain yourself.
In 60 years they'll be in much the same position the government is on drugs. The "war on guns" is increasingly futile when a micro factory in a one bedroom apartment is going to start turning out more guns then the whole neighborhood needs.
And what is really going to undermine their position is that it is going to be international. Other countries that brag about their lack of guns are suddenly going to find themselves awash with them.
This is because most things are prohibited by controlling manufacture, import, and legal sale at retail establishments.
If the entire system bypasses every chock point then they're going to have to rely on defuse enforcement and that is just not something regulations do a good job of managing.
We're also seeing the cartels treat the borders with less respect. Heads on spikes and bus loads of people pushed into mass graves. The anti gun people are not on the right side of history. Time is going to erode their position.
There's no misunderstanding about where the habitat is going to be.
It doesn't have enough gravity to make getting things onto or off of it very hard.
It is a great place for a colony. Yeah, you're not going to turn the moon green because it won't hold an atmosphere. But if you dig down a few hundred feet and build some hydroponics facilities then who cares?
You're safe from the radiation down there, safe from the micro meteorites, there are no big temperature swings, and did I say you're safe from the radiation?
It is the way to go. We're not going to be turning other planets green.
And perhaps our very interest in that as a concept is transitory.
If we merge with our technology, alter our genes... then why do we need a traditional earth biosphere? It is much easier to change ourselves to suit the universe than it is to change the entire universe to suit us.
Once our selves and our technology operates more natively in what is likely typical in the universe at large... the entire universe becomes hospitable.
Too many of these agencies are out of control. Congress needs to go through them one at a time and cut them back to what is useful.
The "drones" which are just remote controlled helicopters in most cases, are no threat to aircraft unless they're flying very high or near airports.
The FAA only exists to make air travel safe.
If a "drone" isn't doing anything that could endanger commercial or military airplanes... then the FAA has no business saying anything about it one way or the other.
As to not being able to judge issues, you can speak for yourself on that issue.
if you want to admit that you don't have enough information to have an opinion on the issue, that is your right. You don't get to speak for my own capability however. What is more, you're ultimately asking me to trust the politicians and just assume that they're both competent and honest. I find that to be a deeply unsatisfactory condition as I trust neither without verification.
At this point I'm going to start sounding nasty but I want you to understand it isn't personal. I am responding more to your argument.
I view this notion of "just trust the government because they can do no wrong" as at best naive. More often it is a sign of laziness which in either case forfeits your right to a personal opinion if you'll make no effort to inform yourself. And at worst you're advocating a mentality which facilitates tyranny.
If you are a citizen and not a peasant then that means not just trusting the nobility to run the country. It means taking some responsibility for the way things operate at least to the extent of being personally informed.
Being a citizen means being more than the dumb muscle of the country but rather a part of its brain as well.
Again, I am trying very hard to not offend you. To be clear, your comment offended me. I find that whole way of looking at this to itself be offensive.
I am not a peasant. Suggesting that I should think like one is unacceptable.
For those that say you should just trust scientist X on anything, this if further evidence as to why that is fallacious thinking.
If the scientists can back up what they're saying and prove it, then fine. Proof is proof.
If they can't really prove it in a way that anyone can understand but they want you to trust them?... Ehm... depends on what that means. If they tell me something about a distant solar system that doesn't really effect anything on earth one way or the other... then sure... whatever guys. It doesn't really matter to me. If whatever it is effects me here and now, then yeah... I'm going to want something tangible or it needs to be explained with evidence in a way that makes sense.
Absent that... Absolutely not.
And anyone that disagrees can enjoy their medication that is actually poison and other fun stuff.
Again, you're worried about the personal. It isn't about me or you. I'd gladly die to stop such a thing. There is actually very little that wouldn't be justifiable to stop such a thing.
Romans had water systems that drove water up hills by having pressurized metal piping... only example I can see of that after that was in the 1800s.
Romans practiced effective brain surgery. The triage tents of the roman army were actually quite effective. Lots of experimentation. The doctors were encouraged to "try" to save lives. And if they didn't know they would just do stuff. They learned an awful lot that way.
They had a basic clockwork computer. I'll pull up the information on it if you like... it calculated the positions of the planets in real time.
There were some basic steam engines.
A lot of stuff. They were on the cusp of entering into an 18th century industrial revolution.... in the year 200-400 AD.
When the empire collapsed all that went out the window.
It is annoying they require a special tax stamp and license.
They don't work the same way they work in movies. The point is not to make the gun silent just not ear deafening.
Back in the old days, people would use silencers for hunting so they didn't have to wear ear protection. I believe Teddy Roosevelt used them with some frequency.
The shot is still quite audible. It doesn't make that "pift" sound in the movies. It is very much a bang. It is just not a crack you can hear for miles.
I saw one company that made a fitting that allows you to use an oil filter as a silencer. It is just a metal adapter that screws on to the barrel and then accepts an oil filter on the other side.
The thing is still expensive but the price is about 99 percent the damn tax stamp. Since the adapter itself is classified as a silencer.
If you could print that adapter then you'd have a DIY silencer.
They can be stored but I don't think they are... and my understanding is that the federal government employees don't have their text messages stored.
These guys will use snapchat or whatever if you record all their official business. They don't want to be recorded.
So you have to set up some rules that say they can't actually issue orders unless they they flow through one of these systems.
You know that bit in the movie where the guy says "I'd like that order in writing?" Well... do that.
It doesn't need to be literally everyone. Just everyone above a certain level. The top 2000 or so government officials. Anyone in charge of an agency or department and their immediate subordinates.
We could record all their meetings, all their phone conversations, all their emails, all their text messages, their search history on government computers, everything. And we'd only look at it if an investigation came up.
The data storage needs to maintain this sort of thing are minor. You're looking at a couple hundred terabytes a year at the most. Which boils down to a storage cost of something like 5 cents a gigabyte. And that's a price on storage I could get. A government agency could probably get a lower price if they wanted. From the back of the napkin calculations I made, you're looking at a per employee annual storage cost of something like 20 dollars a year. Which is nothing if you're only doing it for 2000 people. That puts the total storage cost at about 20 grand. Add another 100 to 200 grand to pay for the techs that will set it up and manage it.
Ideally, the whole thing should be archived in an independent data store.
We should really have something like the "department of records" or something that archives data from every other department and does nothing besides collect all that information and then seal it away into little shelved data stores.
The only point of that would be to keep the other agencies honest about what happened, who said what, and when.
If we can't find out what happened then we can't hold these people accountable and that means they're not under our control at all. They're not even under the president's control if that happens. They're all rogue agencies if you can't audit them.
Billions of deaths and thousands of years of darkness... and whatever culture rises out of that could be a theocracy or a sadistic dictatorship. So yeah. I do have a problem with it.
You seem to not appreciate that the equilibrium point of humanity is one where we live in slavery or bondage. Returning to that point would likely mean whatever survives being enslaved.
As the industrial process shifts to more of a downloaded standard... I expect we're going to see a tightening of standards for what is considered right and not right.
The primary reason being that if everyone is manufacturing parts then there will be a greater need for standardization in those parts.
If you download the plans for a machine are you going to build the one that uses all sorts of weird parts or the one that tries to comply with community standards?
The beauty of it is that you'll have the choice. You can do whatever you want. But look at what happens with software and see the future of hardware. You're going to get a few designs that are very popular and they're going increasingly create standards. And anyone that wants to contribute to that will need to at least acknowledge those standards when they make whatever.
Appreciate, I'm not just talking about guns. I'm talking about washing machines and cars are egg beaters and anything else you can think of really.
I suspect we're going to see some very different designs for guns and really all sorts of machines getting developed.
Existing designs assumed a factory custom making those guns often by skilled craftspeople. What happens when the skill is mostly in the machine and there is an increasing emphasis on people being able to maintain the thing without resorting to help from gunsmiths? You might see some very mad max looking contraptions. But its just a consequence of a different industrial model.
Either commit to 100 percent coverage or accept that areas you're not providing service for should be able to use frequencies there that you use in other places but not there.
There's no reason to give someone that kind of blanket lease.
What is more, the fragmentation is a technological problem that is quiet easily addressed.
First, we can have catalog frequency. That is one frequency EVERYWHERE that specifies what frequencies other services are using in the area. As your device moves it will periodically listen to that frequency and update its database for that area as to what is used by what. This ensures that every device will at least be aware of what frequencies are in use and by what.
Second, the next technological problem is making your device adaptable enough that it can shift to different frequencies and possibly even different protocols. Most devices already do this especially smartphones. My smartphone has a bluetooth radio, a wifi radio, an FM receiver, a GPS receiver, a 2G radio, a 3G radio, and a 4G radio. I think it can also handle either CDMA or GSM. So that is already a very wide range of frequencies and many different protocols. We could push this farther by just having the cellphones use software defined radio. Then they could save a lot of space with all those radios and instead just have one or two for synchronous access to different spectrums. And that assumes the software defined radio can't just inherently process multiple frequencies at once.
Without any technological innovations we could implement most of this right now. And the innovations required are more refinements on existing principle more than true discoveries or inventions.
It would be nice to get those cad files from that company that printed the metal 1911. There looks like a lot of trial and error to turn the old blueprints into something useful.
If she doesn't release all the federal emails then she is committing a felony.
Proving it will be another thing. Trying her in any court will be another thing. Actually getting a conviction will be another thing.
But if she doesn't release the emails then she's committing a felony.
She's not cooperating. At a certain point, that is a crime. The condition of her using private email hosting under the old regs was that the government gets all its email. She was supposed to be disclosing it as she went. CCing or BCCing it all to a government account. The government shouldn't have to ask for it. It should have been getting it as it was made. That was under the OLD rules.
Under the new ones she's just not allowed to do this period.
And regardless... destroying or refusing to disclose the documents is a felony. Before she took office, during her time in office, and to this day. A felony.
Just looked up the boring issue... the bits for boring and rifling a barrel cost about 100 each. The equipment is otherwise non-specialized. I wouldn't be surprised if you could use a drill press or something with one of those bits. Apparently you need to be more careful as the barrels get longer but the shorter barrels are apparently pretty easy.
The printers that can print entirely in metal only cost 50 grand right now. And that price is falling fast.
In ten years, I wouldn't be surprised if they were affordable for the consumer.
And that is just additive manufacturing.
What you need for a barrel is a machine to bore the barrel out. Rather than try to make the gun, get your CnC machine and 3d printer to build the machine that makes the barrel instead. You can use a bar of steel... and then bore it out.
One thing that I don't think anyone has realized is that we could build a von neumann machine. No, not the sci fi nannites, but rather a collection of machines that if used together can make anything.
All you need is all the machines.
The entire global industrial complex is collectively capable of making any of our industrial or electronic goods. And it is capable of making any of the machines that make those goods.
If we want to have a self contained summary of the industrial range of the entire system... we could do it. It might not all fit into one building but it could possibly fit into several. I'm not saying it would be efficient or cheap. But you could put all the relevant machines in a finite amount of space.
And then the next challenge would be combining similar machines so that redundant space isn't use. If you work at it and don't worry about maintaining high output or efficiency but merely capability... you could probably pack it all into a single factory. An anything factory. A factory that could make anything.
And then you want to look at which machines can be built by the other machines. Such that if you only had this portion of the factory you could build the rest.
Ideally, I'd want that in a space capable size. Something not more than perhaps ten tons at most. Why? Because once you have that you can launch it at the moon or mars... and with sufficient automation robots could build an industrial base on any world where they don't melt or freeze. Which means if humans sent a manned ship to one of those worlds... it could be greeted with a red carpet, a cold beer, and a warm bath. Oh and all the spare parts and fuel to return if you so desire.
could mean the death of millions or even billions... could mean a radical reversal of the ruling philosophy to something more predatory and exploitative... could mean the world isolates with no one trusting anyone... could mean another dark age.
People take the order of things for granted not appreciating how unusual and fragile it all is... its worth killing for... worthy dying for... and so many don't even respect it.
What we think of as a modern philosophy isn't really. Modern is an opinion. There's no reason why slavery or sadistic cannibalism isn't modern. All you have to do be to be modern is efficient really. And it is so much more efficient to not concern yourself with the rights of others that can't protect themselves from your predations.
Sure, if you can either tell me where to find them or whatever you feel is best way to do it... then I'd be happy to get my hands on them.
At some point, I want to be able to do this. I don't want to run afoul of the law... but at the same time, I want whether or not I obey it to be a choice on my part rather than an involuntary consequence of government policy.
That is... if and when I decide I want one... I want to know I can do it.
I'm not an AR15 guy. They look ugly in my opinion. They're made to look military issue and I'm not a member of the military. They don't speak to me.
Which begs the question, are any of the rifles pretty? They tend to have a very boring or even ugly look. Just personal aesthetics.:-D
... you can't really stop a currency like this... that's sort of the whole point. You can make it less convenient but you might also make the process by which it operates even harder to monitor.
Slashdot Mirror
As to it taking less fuel to get to mars then the moon... How? Just explain how that is possible.
I'm quite certain you could "throw" things from the moon to the earth. So the return trip wouldn't even take fuel. You could literally just give it a push. And the moon is quite a bit closer than mars... so why does that take less fuel?
As to the surface being a horrible place... so is mars. The Marian atmosphere is a joke. There is basically just enough there in the words of JPL that "you have to deal with it or it will destroy your space craft"... but basically that's all it does. Its not enough to appreciably reduce radiation to the surface. So you're going to want to be underground on Mars as well.
Keep in mind, there are three reasons to go underground.
1. Radiation.
2. meteorites
3. temperature shifts.
You go down and you don't have to deal with any of that. The radiation is as low as on the earth or less. No threat from anything but giant meteors. And the temperature should be the same all time.
As to why not do it on earth? That question doesn't even make sense. I wouldn't do it on the earth because I can walk around naked on the surface of the earth without risking anything but possibly getting throw in jail for indecency.
So why would I do that?
On the moon, there is no atmosphere, there are little bullets flying through the air all the time that will kill me, there are massive temperature shifts, and quite a bit of radiation.
If I burrow down then I can inflate a shelter or spray plastic on the walls of a hollowed out area. I can then pressurize and know that it will probably be safe even if it is only a couple millimeters thick. If I were on the surface the walls of my enclosure would have to be a lot thicker.
It simply isn't practical to do anything but burrow. You burrow and you basically get a very insulated enclosure without having to bring all that insulation with you. You just use the moon rock/dust to shield your habitat.
I really don't understand you comment. Please explain yourself.
In 60 years they'll be in much the same position the government is on drugs. The "war on guns" is increasingly futile when a micro factory in a one bedroom apartment is going to start turning out more guns then the whole neighborhood needs.
And what is really going to undermine their position is that it is going to be international. Other countries that brag about their lack of guns are suddenly going to find themselves awash with them.
This is because most things are prohibited by controlling manufacture, import, and legal sale at retail establishments.
If the entire system bypasses every chock point then they're going to have to rely on defuse enforcement and that is just not something regulations do a good job of managing.
We're also seeing the cartels treat the borders with less respect. Heads on spikes and bus loads of people pushed into mass graves. The anti gun people are not on the right side of history. Time is going to erode their position.
It is closer.
There's no misunderstanding about where the habitat is going to be.
It doesn't have enough gravity to make getting things onto or off of it very hard.
It is a great place for a colony. Yeah, you're not going to turn the moon green because it won't hold an atmosphere. But if you dig down a few hundred feet and build some hydroponics facilities then who cares?
You're safe from the radiation down there, safe from the micro meteorites, there are no big temperature swings, and did I say you're safe from the radiation?
It is the way to go. We're not going to be turning other planets green.
And perhaps our very interest in that as a concept is transitory.
If we merge with our technology, alter our genes... then why do we need a traditional earth biosphere? It is much easier to change ourselves to suit the universe than it is to change the entire universe to suit us.
Once our selves and our technology operates more natively in what is likely typical in the universe at large... the entire universe becomes hospitable.
Too many of these agencies are out of control. Congress needs to go through them one at a time and cut them back to what is useful.
The "drones" which are just remote controlled helicopters in most cases, are no threat to aircraft unless they're flying very high or near airports.
The FAA only exists to make air travel safe.
If a "drone" isn't doing anything that could endanger commercial or military airplanes... then the FAA has no business saying anything about it one way or the other.
As to not being able to judge issues, you can speak for yourself on that issue.
if you want to admit that you don't have enough information to have an opinion on the issue, that is your right. You don't get to speak for my own capability however. What is more, you're ultimately asking me to trust the politicians and just assume that they're both competent and honest. I find that to be a deeply unsatisfactory condition as I trust neither without verification.
At this point I'm going to start sounding nasty but I want you to understand it isn't personal. I am responding more to your argument.
I view this notion of "just trust the government because they can do no wrong" as at best naive. More often it is a sign of laziness which in either case forfeits your right to a personal opinion if you'll make no effort to inform yourself. And at worst you're advocating a mentality which facilitates tyranny.
If you are a citizen and not a peasant then that means not just trusting the nobility to run the country. It means taking some responsibility for the way things operate at least to the extent of being personally informed.
Being a citizen means being more than the dumb muscle of the country but rather a part of its brain as well.
Again, I am trying very hard to not offend you. To be clear, your comment offended me. I find that whole way of looking at this to itself be offensive.
I am not a peasant. Suggesting that I should think like one is unacceptable.
For those that say you should just trust scientist X on anything, this if further evidence as to why that is fallacious thinking.
If the scientists can back up what they're saying and prove it, then fine. Proof is proof.
If they can't really prove it in a way that anyone can understand but they want you to trust them?... Ehm... depends on what that means. If they tell me something about a distant solar system that doesn't really effect anything on earth one way or the other... then sure... whatever guys. It doesn't really matter to me. If whatever it is effects me here and now, then yeah... I'm going to want something tangible or it needs to be explained with evidence in a way that makes sense.
Absent that... Absolutely not.
And anyone that disagrees can enjoy their medication that is actually poison and other fun stuff.
Again, you're worried about the personal. It isn't about me or you. I'd gladly die to stop such a thing. There is actually very little that wouldn't be justifiable to stop such a thing.
""Oh, and slavery is very modern. That's why we still maintain national borders. They are today's Jim Crow laws. "" substantiate that please
Our only chance for species survival rests in having longer term plans than merely our own short lives.
Connect any of that to reality please because I think you're exaggerating to the point of deceit.
Romans had water wheel driven floor mills.
Romans had water systems that drove water up hills by having pressurized metal piping... only example I can see of that after that was in the 1800s.
Romans practiced effective brain surgery. The triage tents of the roman army were actually quite effective. Lots of experimentation. The doctors were encouraged to "try" to save lives. And if they didn't know they would just do stuff. They learned an awful lot that way.
They had a basic clockwork computer. I'll pull up the information on it if you like... it calculated the positions of the planets in real time.
There were some basic steam engines.
A lot of stuff. They were on the cusp of entering into an 18th century industrial revolution.... in the year 200-400 AD.
When the empire collapsed all that went out the window.
I'd like to see more home made silencers.
It is annoying they require a special tax stamp and license.
They don't work the same way they work in movies. The point is not to make the gun silent just not ear deafening.
Back in the old days, people would use silencers for hunting so they didn't have to wear ear protection. I believe Teddy Roosevelt used them with some frequency.
The shot is still quite audible. It doesn't make that "pift" sound in the movies. It is very much a bang. It is just not a crack you can hear for miles.
I saw one company that made a fitting that allows you to use an oil filter as a silencer. It is just a metal adapter that screws on to the barrel and then accepts an oil filter on the other side.
The thing is still expensive but the price is about 99 percent the damn tax stamp. Since the adapter itself is classified as a silencer.
If you could print that adapter then you'd have a DIY silencer.
They can be stored but I don't think they are... and my understanding is that the federal government employees don't have their text messages stored.
These guys will use snapchat or whatever if you record all their official business. They don't want to be recorded.
So you have to set up some rules that say they can't actually issue orders unless they they flow through one of these systems.
You know that bit in the movie where the guy says "I'd like that order in writing?" Well... do that.
It doesn't need to be literally everyone. Just everyone above a certain level. The top 2000 or so government officials. Anyone in charge of an agency or department and their immediate subordinates.
We could record all their meetings, all their phone conversations, all their emails, all their text messages, their search history on government computers, everything. And we'd only look at it if an investigation came up.
The data storage needs to maintain this sort of thing are minor. You're looking at a couple hundred terabytes a year at the most. Which boils down to a storage cost of something like 5 cents a gigabyte. And that's a price on storage I could get. A government agency could probably get a lower price if they wanted. From the back of the napkin calculations I made, you're looking at a per employee annual storage cost of something like 20 dollars a year. Which is nothing if you're only doing it for 2000 people. That puts the total storage cost at about 20 grand. Add another 100 to 200 grand to pay for the techs that will set it up and manage it.
Ideally, the whole thing should be archived in an independent data store.
We should really have something like the "department of records" or something that archives data from every other department and does nothing besides collect all that information and then seal it away into little shelved data stores.
The only point of that would be to keep the other agencies honest about what happened, who said what, and when.
If we can't find out what happened then we can't hold these people accountable and that means they're not under our control at all. They're not even under the president's control if that happens. They're all rogue agencies if you can't audit them.
Billions of deaths and thousands of years of darkness... and whatever culture rises out of that could be a theocracy or a sadistic dictatorship. So yeah. I do have a problem with it.
You seem to not appreciate that the equilibrium point of humanity is one where we live in slavery or bondage. Returning to that point would likely mean whatever survives being enslaved.
Software defined radio doesn't have infinite antennas.
As the industrial process shifts to more of a downloaded standard... I expect we're going to see a tightening of standards for what is considered right and not right.
The primary reason being that if everyone is manufacturing parts then there will be a greater need for standardization in those parts.
If you download the plans for a machine are you going to build the one that uses all sorts of weird parts or the one that tries to comply with community standards?
The beauty of it is that you'll have the choice. You can do whatever you want. But look at what happens with software and see the future of hardware. You're going to get a few designs that are very popular and they're going increasingly create standards. And anyone that wants to contribute to that will need to at least acknowledge those standards when they make whatever.
Appreciate, I'm not just talking about guns. I'm talking about washing machines and cars are egg beaters and anything else you can think of really.
I suspect we're going to see some very different designs for guns and really all sorts of machines getting developed.
Existing designs assumed a factory custom making those guns often by skilled craftspeople. What happens when the skill is mostly in the machine and there is an increasing emphasis on people being able to maintain the thing without resorting to help from gunsmiths? You might see some very mad max looking contraptions. But its just a consequence of a different industrial model.
Either commit to 100 percent coverage or accept that areas you're not providing service for should be able to use frequencies there that you use in other places but not there.
There's no reason to give someone that kind of blanket lease.
What is more, the fragmentation is a technological problem that is quiet easily addressed.
First, we can have catalog frequency. That is one frequency EVERYWHERE that specifies what frequencies other services are using in the area. As your device moves it will periodically listen to that frequency and update its database for that area as to what is used by what. This ensures that every device will at least be aware of what frequencies are in use and by what.
Second, the next technological problem is making your device adaptable enough that it can shift to different frequencies and possibly even different protocols. Most devices already do this especially smartphones. My smartphone has a bluetooth radio, a wifi radio, an FM receiver, a GPS receiver, a 2G radio, a 3G radio, and a 4G radio. I think it can also handle either CDMA or GSM. So that is already a very wide range of frequencies and many different protocols. We could push this farther by just having the cellphones use software defined radio. Then they could save a lot of space with all those radios and instead just have one or two for synchronous access to different spectrums. And that assumes the software defined radio can't just inherently process multiple frequencies at once.
Without any technological innovations we could implement most of this right now. And the innovations required are more refinements on existing principle more than true discoveries or inventions.
It would be nice to get those cad files from that company that printed the metal 1911. There looks like a lot of trial and error to turn the old blueprints into something useful.
The head of the State department is absolutely responsible for state department policy and compliance to regulations.
Keep dancing. You need more practice.
If she doesn't release all the federal emails then she is committing a felony.
Proving it will be another thing.
Trying her in any court will be another thing.
Actually getting a conviction will be another thing.
But if she doesn't release the emails then she's committing a felony.
She's not cooperating. At a certain point, that is a crime. The condition of her using private email hosting under the old regs was that the government gets all its email. She was supposed to be disclosing it as she went. CCing or BCCing it all to a government account. The government shouldn't have to ask for it. It should have been getting it as it was made. That was under the OLD rules.
Under the new ones she's just not allowed to do this period.
And regardless... destroying or refusing to disclose the documents is a felony. Before she took office, during her time in office, and to this day. A felony.
Just looked up the boring issue... the bits for boring and rifling a barrel cost about 100 each. The equipment is otherwise non-specialized. I wouldn't be surprised if you could use a drill press or something with one of those bits. Apparently you need to be more careful as the barrels get longer but the shorter barrels are apparently pretty easy.
The printers that can print entirely in metal only cost 50 grand right now. And that price is falling fast.
In ten years, I wouldn't be surprised if they were affordable for the consumer.
And that is just additive manufacturing.
What you need for a barrel is a machine to bore the barrel out. Rather than try to make the gun, get your CnC machine and 3d printer to build the machine that makes the barrel instead. You can use a bar of steel... and then bore it out.
One thing that I don't think anyone has realized is that we could build a von neumann machine. No, not the sci fi nannites, but rather a collection of machines that if used together can make anything.
All you need is all the machines.
The entire global industrial complex is collectively capable of making any of our industrial or electronic goods. And it is capable of making any of the machines that make those goods.
If we want to have a self contained summary of the industrial range of the entire system... we could do it. It might not all fit into one building but it could possibly fit into several. I'm not saying it would be efficient or cheap. But you could put all the relevant machines in a finite amount of space.
And then the next challenge would be combining similar machines so that redundant space isn't use. If you work at it and don't worry about maintaining high output or efficiency but merely capability... you could probably pack it all into a single factory. An anything factory. A factory that could make anything.
And then you want to look at which machines can be built by the other machines. Such that if you only had this portion of the factory you could build the rest.
Ideally, I'd want that in a space capable size. Something not more than perhaps ten tons at most. Why? Because once you have that you can launch it at the moon or mars... and with sufficient automation robots could build an industrial base on any world where they don't melt or freeze. Which means if humans sent a manned ship to one of those worlds... it could be greeted with a red carpet, a cold beer, and a warm bath. Oh and all the spare parts and fuel to return if you so desire.
could mean the death of millions or even billions... could mean a radical reversal of the ruling philosophy to something more predatory and exploitative... could mean the world isolates with no one trusting anyone... could mean another dark age.
People take the order of things for granted not appreciating how unusual and fragile it all is... its worth killing for... worthy dying for... and so many don't even respect it.
What we think of as a modern philosophy isn't really. Modern is an opinion. There's no reason why slavery or sadistic cannibalism isn't modern. All you have to do be to be modern is efficient really. And it is so much more efficient to not concern yourself with the rights of others that can't protect themselves from your predations.
You say "oh well"... Oh well the world burns...
Sure, if you can either tell me where to find them or whatever you feel is best way to do it... then I'd be happy to get my hands on them.
At some point, I want to be able to do this. I don't want to run afoul of the law... but at the same time, I want whether or not I obey it to be a choice on my part rather than an involuntary consequence of government policy.
That is... if and when I decide I want one... I want to know I can do it.
I'm not an AR15 guy. They look ugly in my opinion. They're made to look military issue and I'm not a member of the military. They don't speak to me.
Which begs the question, are any of the rifles pretty? They tend to have a very boring or even ugly look. Just personal aesthetics. :-D
... you can't really stop a currency like this... that's sort of the whole point. You can make it less convenient but you might also make the process by which it operates even harder to monitor.
Also, the legality of such a law is dubious.