I'll bet one of England's kings, several hundred years ago, had a stroke and started speaking that way; then the nobles decided it was in fashion and imitated it, then the populace began talking that way... No wonder they all talk funny.;-)
Actually, I think that might not be such a bad idea, assuming the shuttle didn't have a round-trip payload filling up its cargo bay. It'd take a few man-hours to grab and stow, but might be even less expensive than putting up a specialized reentry device to guide it down safely.
I'm not sure you'd find caching a subset of your file base to work very well. You might wish to consider instead installing some additional machines at the main location and allowing your researchers to log onto them remotely, using X or VNC if necessary. This should work much better than trying to maintain a local partial cache if you think you're going to experience many cache misses, especially since some of those files are so large.
On the contrary, I'd have no problem with rectenna farms being put out in the desert, or even floating farms offshore. The article mentioned sharing space with an industrial area, which would mean some exposure to humans. And constant exposure to fringe radiation of only a few percent of the density being talked about might have deleterious effects to health.
noontime sunlight is about 300W/sq.yd, or 36mW/sq.cm. Times 20% = about 7.2mW/sq.cm. The maximum allowed leakage for a new microwave oven is 1mW/sq.cm at 2" away, and it is illegal for any microwave oven to emit more than 5mW/sq.cm at 2".
This means that if you were within the beam you would be exposed to more radiation than if you were 2" away from a leaky microwave oven, continuously.
Interesting... The proposals I've seen for solar power satellites require a "rectenna farm" of several square miles. This would be nice for several reasons, including a low beam intensity; if the beam strayed, it wouldn't flash-cook anything it touched. To try and erect such a large contiguous antenna array over an industrial area would be an enormous challenge. I suspect they're basing it on using a greater beam density, which could cause all sorts of problems; even assuming the beam could never go off target, there might be quite a bit of radiation around the fringes of the receiver.
Compared to this, I think a plain ordinary nuclear reactor would be lots safer.
SPSes shouldn't be put in geosynchronous orbit; it's more useful for other purposes, is a bit closer in than I think is wise, and has other issues. A non-equatorial orbit at around 50,000 miles would be IMO much more desirable. Given the right choice of orbit a SPS should never be in shadow or shade the Earth, and would never dip below the horizon for most of the planet. Geosync would let you build a static transmission system but dynamic positioning wouldn't add a lot of headaches.
It takes 1/50th the energy -- less, counting atmospheric drag -- to launch materials from the moon into space than from Earth. This could be accomplished using compressed gasses liberated from the lunar crust, or an electromagnetic accelerator.
IMNSHO, we shouldn't be pushing for Mars *OR* the moon. The moon is better, simply because of its proximity and the small size of its gravity well, but even the moon should be second to our exploration of the asteroids. Raw materials found there would be readily exploitable, and given solar sail technologies would be cheap to move. This would allow us to build better infrastructure in Earth orbit which would assist in any future exploration.
No one said you'd need to put SPSes in geostationary orbit; while it might be desirable, you could put them much further out, say, 50,000 miles or so. Plenty of empty real estate there. At that distance and in a carefully calculated orbit a SPS would need to spend no time at all in Earth's shadow. Further, there is no "bright side of the moon"; there is a side that always faces the Earth, but like the rest of the moon the nights are two weeks long.
As for pollution, you assume SPSes will produce no pollution. Even if most of the materials were supplied from the moon rockets for servicing and supplies would pollute. Also, having microwaves being beamed around may not be too healthy for the enviromment. Roasted dove, anyone? Plus, the microwave beams from SPSes could conceivably be used as weapons.
Beaming power all the way from the moon is one of the most stupid ideas I've heard. If you want solar energy that badly, you can mine the moon for materials but the most logical place for the solar collectors is Earth orbit. You'd get an order of magnitude better efficiency by not transmitting power over such an enormous distance.
But the article is facetious from the start; they claim the "only" way to keep up with power demand is through solar power. Whatever happened to nuclear? Reactors would easily cover any power demands for the next few centuries -- the next few millennia, if we ever get over the stupid dislike for breeder reactors.
First Szulik promotes Windows, now some unknown Princeton professor pans free software and gets enormous media attention. I wonder whether Microsoft has been doing more to discredit open source than just financing SCO's lawsuits; have they been spreading cash around trying to fake a grass roots campaign?
Consider that, with open source, it's a lot easier for an adverse party to check if you are using their proprietary technology. Trying to divine that from a block of binary is a hell of a lot more difficult.
That's quite a difference in key strength between RSA and ECC. How does ECC's key strength compare to the best symmetric cryptosystems? Is it of the same close order of magnitude? If so, that's rather impressive.
NEVER use silicone spray anywhere near the engine compartment on a modern vehicle. Turns out the volatiles released by the spray are death on the O2 sensors, and they're expensive to replace!
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bet one of England's kings, several hundred years ago, had a stroke and started speaking that way; then the nobles decided it was in fashion and imitated it, then the populace began talking that way... No wonder they all talk funny. ;-)
Actually, I think that might not be such a bad idea, assuming the shuttle didn't have a round-trip payload filling up its cargo bay. It'd take a few man-hours to grab and stow, but might be even less expensive than putting up a specialized reentry device to guide it down safely.
It's very important for the shadow government to be able to stay in touch.
I'm not sure you'd find caching a subset of your file base to work very well. You might wish to consider instead installing some additional machines at the main location and allowing your researchers to log onto them remotely, using X or VNC if necessary. This should work much better than trying to maintain a local partial cache if you think you're going to experience many cache misses, especially since some of those files are so large.
On the contrary, I'd have no problem with rectenna farms being put out in the desert, or even floating farms offshore. The article mentioned sharing space with an industrial area, which would mean some exposure to humans. And constant exposure to fringe radiation of only a few percent of the density being talked about might have deleterious effects to health.
noontime sunlight is about 300W/sq.yd, or 36mW/sq.cm. Times 20% = about 7.2mW/sq.cm. The maximum allowed leakage for a new microwave oven is 1mW/sq.cm at 2" away, and it is illegal for any microwave oven to emit more than 5mW/sq.cm at 2".
This means that if you were within the beam you would be exposed to more radiation than if you were 2" away from a leaky microwave oven, continuously.
I'd call that dangerous.
Interesting... The proposals I've seen for solar power satellites require a "rectenna farm" of several square miles. This would be nice for several reasons, including a low beam intensity; if the beam strayed, it wouldn't flash-cook anything it touched. To try and erect such a large contiguous antenna array over an industrial area would be an enormous challenge. I suspect they're basing it on using a greater beam density, which could cause all sorts of problems; even assuming the beam could never go off target, there might be quite a bit of radiation around the fringes of the receiver.
Compared to this, I think a plain ordinary nuclear reactor would be lots safer.
Well, not exactly, but I know where he got the idea from.
SPSes shouldn't be put in geosynchronous orbit; it's more useful for other purposes, is a bit closer in than I think is wise, and has other issues. A non-equatorial orbit at around 50,000 miles would be IMO much more desirable. Given the right choice of orbit a SPS should never be in shadow or shade the Earth, and would never dip below the horizon for most of the planet. Geosync would let you build a static transmission system but dynamic positioning wouldn't add a lot of headaches.
The inverse-square law applies, even in vacuum, even with focused beams. It's simply more efficient to transmit the beam from a shorter distance.
Fine. "Fission". Happy now?
Frankly, I like the idea of going to space, but getting power from space when there's a much easier alternative is silly.
Depends on the orbit you place them in. It's possible, but even if a SPS were in an orbit that cast a shadow on the Earth, it would be fleeting.
It takes 1/50th the energy -- less, counting atmospheric drag -- to launch materials from the moon into space than from Earth. This could be accomplished using compressed gasses liberated from the lunar crust, or an electromagnetic accelerator.
Don't let anyone suggest storing nuclear waste there!
IMNSHO, we shouldn't be pushing for Mars *OR* the moon. The moon is better, simply because of its proximity and the small size of its gravity well, but even the moon should be second to our exploration of the asteroids. Raw materials found there would be readily exploitable, and given solar sail technologies would be cheap to move. This would allow us to build better infrastructure in Earth orbit which would assist in any future exploration.
No one said you'd need to put SPSes in geostationary orbit; while it might be desirable, you could put them much further out, say, 50,000 miles or so. Plenty of empty real estate there. At that distance and in a carefully calculated orbit a SPS would need to spend no time at all in Earth's shadow. Further, there is no "bright side of the moon"; there is a side that always faces the Earth, but like the rest of the moon the nights are two weeks long.
As for pollution, you assume SPSes will produce no pollution. Even if most of the materials were supplied from the moon rockets for servicing and supplies would pollute. Also, having microwaves being beamed around may not be too healthy for the enviromment. Roasted dove, anyone? Plus, the microwave beams from SPSes could conceivably be used as weapons.
Beaming power all the way from the moon is one of the most stupid ideas I've heard. If you want solar energy that badly, you can mine the moon for materials but the most logical place for the solar collectors is Earth orbit. You'd get an order of magnitude better efficiency by not transmitting power over such an enormous distance.
But the article is facetious from the start; they claim the "only" way to keep up with power demand is through solar power. Whatever happened to nuclear? Reactors would easily cover any power demands for the next few centuries -- the next few millennia, if we ever get over the stupid dislike for breeder reactors.
First Szulik promotes Windows, now some unknown Princeton professor pans free software and gets enormous media attention. I wonder whether Microsoft has been doing more to discredit open source than just financing SCO's lawsuits; have they been spreading cash around trying to fake a grass roots campaign?
I found this page more enlightening.
You know, plants convert less than 1% of the sunlight falling on them into utilizable energy. The worst solar cells do much, much better than that.
Frankly, I think we start building nuclear reactors again. They produce a lot fewer environmental pollutants than current generation plants.
Consider that, with open source, it's a lot easier for an adverse party to check if you are using their proprietary technology. Trying to divine that from a block of binary is a hell of a lot more difficult.
That's quite a difference in key strength between RSA and ECC. How does ECC's key strength compare to the best symmetric cryptosystems? Is it of the same close order of magnitude? If so, that's rather impressive.
NEVER use silicone spray anywhere near the engine compartment on a modern vehicle. Turns out the volatiles released by the spray are death on the O2 sensors, and they're expensive to replace!
"Oh my god, it's full of money!" $_$
I used to be an astronomer, now I work in computer security - not exactly the most conventional career path.
I know at least one guy who took a career path similar to yours...