Indeed - Lego should have taken their cue from The Sims Online, There, and Second Life rather than cookie cutter MMORPG's. The evidence is abundant that people want a virtual world to hang out, create, and socialize in. (Reaching as far back as MUD's. Back in the day, when UO ruled the roost, it was occasionally called the 'worlds bloodiest chatroom'.)
The site doesn't tell you whether everyone in the household is gone, only if one person in the household is gone. A robber would still have to peek in the windows and do whatever it is robbers do to make sure the house is empty. But they could do that just by walking around some random neighbourhood and peeking in random windows
You miss the point. A thief wandering a random neighborhood peeking in random windows is rolling the dice hoping for a natural 100. A thief using tweets, status updates, etc... is using loaded dice. He has a much higher chance of rolling a 'natural' 100.
they don't need Twitter to tell them to peek into someone's windows.
No, they don't 'need' Twitter. Nor do I 'need' to use Google to look up what I could find by getting in my car, driving down to the library, and then poring through the indexes of half a dozen books after using the card catalog to locate those books.
But Twitter and Google make both of our lives a hell of a lot easier.
Well, I'm an HVAC engineer so I do have at least a slight clue
Very slight as demonstrated by the statement you made.
If the electronics require extremely precise control, then the A/C system will be tricky no matter what.
Well, then maybe you should try reading what you replied to originally. If you had, then you'd have seen where they stated they required precise control.
True, but if it's for a job doing.NET programming (for example) a lot of people doing hiring will take the guy with 1 year of.NET experience and nothing else over the guy with 30 years experience in 5 different languages and no.NET. All else being equal, the latter guy will probably be more valuable.
If I'm hiring someone to do.NET programming, I see no a priori reason to assume that the guy without any.NET experience would be a better hire than a with.NET experience.
I'm reminded of the home improvement show I saw a few weeks back. A highly experienced contractor was brought in to do a remodel, and on the surface did an excellent job. But after a few months problems began to surface that he couldn't (or wouldn't) fix. The guy brought in to fix the problems traced many of them to the original contractor using new materials but old techniques that weren't suitable to the new materials and didn't take into account current building practices.
All else being equal, the original contractor with decades of experience should have been a good choice, but in reality he was an iceman - frozen in time and irrelevant to the modern era.
And if you actually read the Wikipedia article you link to, rather than just drooling over the qualifications of the inventor, you'll find that as people have actually began to seriously study it - there are now significant doubts as to how well it will work. (Even assuming we figure out how to do the parts Bussard handwaved into existence, like the magnetic scoop.) In addition, even if it does work, it may be subject to the problems outlined in TFA.
Seriously, any number of sci-fi authors have covered this problem in enormous detail over the last few decades
Yes, any number of sci-fi authors have handwaved around these problems for the last few years. Actual scientists, not so much. And, as with TFA, the conclusions of the ones that have been less than sanguine. (From the POV of actually doing it.)
While I have some Valentines chocolate remaining uneaten, none of it is 'left over'.
It's far too valuable to melt (thus destroying many of it's finer qualities), a) because it's quality chocolate rather than crap picked up at the convenience store, and b) my wife handpicked the assortment for me catering to my tastes.
I was thinking some superstructure to hold a skin above the mirror a few cm. I wasn't really thinking coating, although that's what I typed.
So now you want a structure/coating/protective layer that a) can handle the slings and arrows of handling and storage, and b) aerodynamic loads in flight, *and* c) peels/burns away cleanly? That's a seriously tall order. When my shipment of unobtanium trioxide gets in later in the week, I'll get right on it.:):)
Still, you make damn good points.
Because I've spent a great deal of time studying and thinking about how to defeat ABM systems and the impacts those defense measures have on the missile. (As well as about the missiles themselves, you can understand the effects without understanding the causes, no?)
Pretty much all of the defensive measures available to the missile designer have one key feature though - they make his life much more difficult, and the same for the operators. It may just be more simple to launch more missiles hoping to saturate the defenses, but this increases the attackers costs and most likely decreases the number of attacks he can make. This still seems to yield a slight net win for the defender.
However, if we get good at taking out missiles and building really powerful lasers, it will really be easy to hit stationary targets. Then you don't need to worry so much about firing missiles in the first place.....
I'm not so certain of that. Lasers work well against missiles because they have such thin skins. There isn't a class of stationary targets anywhere nearly as sensitive or vulnerable.
Well, Google has the marketplace cornered for streaming video sites with YouTube. It has the power to effect such a change so don't be so shortsighted.
Assuming of course that people don't visit YouTube, find it 'broken' and go on to one of the other video streaming sites. So yeah, it does have to power to effect change. It also has the power to shoot itself in the foot with an atomic cannon.
It's not tricky with the bang-bang type of controller typical of consumer systems which are heating and cooling relatively tolerant loads like people. Where it gets tricky is where you need to maintain a steady state temperature and flow in order to avoid disruption of sensitive electronics.
(IOW: I get really annoyed when slashdotters say "all you need is 'X'", without the slightest clue as to what the real requirements or complexities are.)
Actually, I think you might be able to put a protective coating over a mirror. As long as the coating is thin enough that when the laser burns it off, it doesn't significantly change the flight characteristics, you'd be set.
The problem is ensure the coating actually burns off cleanly (leaving no residue to be heated by the incoming energy) and couples no sigificant heat to the mirror below. That's a pretty tall order.
A perfect mirror to bounce the laser off of, and no chance of scratches or dings to mess the mirror up.
That's going to be a significantly thick and heavy duty coating. I suspect it will couple enough energy into the mirror anyway that it might harm as much as it helps.
I always wondered, would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat?
Unlikely. It needs to be a front surface mirror, or else the laser will simply take effect in whatever (glass or plastic) makes up the front portion of the mirror. Even if it is a front surface mirror, such mirrors are very susceptible to scratches, dings, oxidation, and other damage that will render it vulnerable. Even minor amounts of corrosion or staining (invisible to the naked eye) can compromise the protection the mirror provides and you can't put a protective coating on the mirror to protect it from such...
Not to mention that such a delicate and vulnerable coating is incompatible with the handling and operational environment of the battlefield missiles the ABL is designed to work against.
And, before anyone asks, pretty much the same is true of spinning the missile. Spinning introduces a whole host of significant problems for the missile designer.
I hate to point this out to you, but "saw the movies as adults" means "saw the movies as adults", not "saw the movies as [over thirty] adults [and then saw all six at once]". Had the OP meant that, I assume that's what he'd have said.
So either he needs to learn to write, or you need to learn to read. I suspect the latter based on the rest of his post.
There's an easy test to your theory. Go find some people who saw all of the movies as adults and ask them what they think. So far, everyone I've asked who was an adult for both sets of movies (including a bunch of friends in the office and my dad, a lifelong sci fi fan) thought the original films were much better.
They too were young when they saw the original movies - everything is better when you're younger. That's the grandparent's entire point.
But chalking it all up to the audience having grown up is just willfully denying what everybody really knows.
One thing I've found over the years, that what "everyone knows" is usually false.
What I find more interesting that you've decided they're guilty, seemingly on little to no evidence and contrary to the results of official investigations.
So please, stop telling us we should be giving them the benefit of the doubt, that this report is only to fuel paranoia.
You're correct. Your paranoia seems to require no further fuel.
Read what he said - his exact words were "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,", not "If you're committing a crime...".
Think of all the personal things you do every day that are just nobody's business.
Things "you don't want anyone to know about" aren't the same as "things that are nobody's business" in that the first are generally things you are trying to hide to avoid potential consequences.
In fact, Ivan Kurchatov (in charge of developing the first Soviet nuclear weapons) specifically kept the intelligence he was provided away from his subordinates. He used the data as an 'answer key' to compare to the results of their work and tests they brought him - and if they got it wrong, he just sent them back to try again (usually without giving them any hints).
Throw in the fact that the Shuttle probably has the most hypersonic flight time of any vehicle and you have a really treasure trove of useful information.
By the time of STS-5, the Shuttle had accumulated more hypersonic flight than all other US programs to date combined. Even with the test programs run since then, the Shuttle still represent better than 99% of our hypersonic flight experience according to an aerodynamicist I know.
The boosters (both liquid and solid), the main engines and their controllers, the reaction control systems, the flight control computers, the guidance and navigation system... There's more, but that will do for a partial list. All valuable technologies.
While the Shuttle as a whole is obsolete, many of its component technologies are still valuable and useful today.
I suspect many Slashdotters believe that since the Shuttle is a 70's era design it must be the equivalent of a 70's era computer - a dinosaur that's completely obsolete and nothing but a historical curiosity. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the first place, much of the Shuttle's electronics have been routinely upgraded over the years. In the second place, if you don't have the tech then even old but fully functional tech can serve as a valuable springboard. Even if you do have the tech, old tech from someone else can give you insights for your own research and development. Then there are are things like the SSME, items that are even today are on the bleeding edge. Not to mention technologies like the RCC which have immediate military application even though the basic design and technology is forty odd years old.
This is the same reason the USN still classifies the nuclear reactor technology onboard the USS Nautilus, even though she was built in 1954 and decommissioned in 1980. The theory of nuclear power is very simple, but actually designing, building, and operating one... not so much. Doubly so with a specialized engineering niche like a compact high power nuclear plant. Technology in the real world isn't like technology ladders or levels in games - just because two nations have developed the same broad technology, doesn't mean they have equivalent capabilities. Look at the problems the Russians had in developing safe and reliable submarine nuclear reactors for example. Or, look at how long it's taken the Indians (no technological slouches) to develop and build a homegrown submarine nuclear power plant - even with assistance from the Russians and a domestic nuclear power industry.
Where Google can offer clear cut advantage, it's easy to see them dominating. Online search was ripe for such a revolution. Other things like answers.google.com just didn't make 'em enough money.
And that's the thing, in so many things they've tried they aren't dominant. They came late to the table without offering a clearly superior product and have suffered for it.
Social networking needed a revolution and Facebook emerged as the winner.
What I think had made Google such a success has been it's openness towards developers and Facebook beat Google to that game by allowing developers to use it's services (which is torn from Google's own playbook).
Facebook didn't 'beat' Google. They beat LiveJournal, and Myspace, and Friendster. Google wasn't even in the race as they never put any significant effort into Orkut or Jaiku.
Google can try but I think they're gonna fail on this one, Facebook people are way too entrenched in it now
I don't think they are going to fail, but they will have a hard time coming out near the top.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed - Lego should have taken their cue from The Sims Online, There, and Second Life rather than cookie cutter MMORPG's. The evidence is abundant that people want a virtual world to hang out, create, and socialize in. (Reaching as far back as MUD's. Back in the day, when UO ruled the roost, it was occasionally called the 'worlds bloodiest chatroom'.)
You miss the point. A thief wandering a random neighborhood peeking in random windows is rolling the dice hoping for a natural 100. A thief using tweets, status updates, etc... is using loaded dice. He has a much higher chance of rolling a 'natural' 100.
No, they don't 'need' Twitter. Nor do I 'need' to use Google to look up what I could find by getting in my car, driving down to the library, and then poring through the indexes of half a dozen books after using the card catalog to locate those books.
But Twitter and Google make both of our lives a hell of a lot easier.
What makes you think I don't read sci-fi?
Very slight as demonstrated by the statement you made.
Well, then maybe you should try reading what you replied to originally. If you had, then you'd have seen where they stated they required precise control.
Well, mine is attractive me. I don't particularly care what other people think.
If I'm hiring someone to do .NET programming, I see no a priori reason to assume that the guy without any .NET experience would be a better hire than a with .NET experience.
I'm reminded of the home improvement show I saw a few weeks back. A highly experienced contractor was brought in to do a remodel, and on the surface did an excellent job. But after a few months problems began to surface that he couldn't (or wouldn't) fix. The guy brought in to fix the problems traced many of them to the original contractor using new materials but old techniques that weren't suitable to the new materials and didn't take into account current building practices.
All else being equal, the original contractor with decades of experience should have been a good choice, but in reality he was an iceman - frozen in time and irrelevant to the modern era.
You do understand that is exactly my point? Did you even bother to read what I wrote?
And if you actually read the Wikipedia article you link to, rather than just drooling over the qualifications of the inventor, you'll find that as people have actually began to seriously study it - there are now significant doubts as to how well it will work. (Even assuming we figure out how to do the parts Bussard handwaved into existence, like the magnetic scoop.) In addition, even if it does work, it may be subject to the problems outlined in TFA.
Yes, any number of sci-fi authors have handwaved around these problems for the last few years. Actual scientists, not so much. And, as with TFA, the conclusions of the ones that have been less than sanguine. (From the POV of actually doing it.)
While I have some Valentines chocolate remaining uneaten, none of it is 'left over'.
It's far too valuable to melt (thus destroying many of it's finer qualities), a) because it's quality chocolate rather than crap picked up at the convenience store, and b) my wife handpicked the assortment for me catering to my tastes.
So now you want a structure/coating/protective layer that a) can handle the slings and arrows of handling and storage, and b) aerodynamic loads in flight, *and* c) peels/burns away cleanly? That's a seriously tall order. When my shipment of unobtanium trioxide gets in later in the week, I'll get right on it. :) :)
Because I've spent a great deal of time studying and thinking about how to defeat ABM systems and the impacts those defense measures have on the missile. (As well as about the missiles themselves, you can understand the effects without understanding the causes, no?)
Pretty much all of the defensive measures available to the missile designer have one key feature though - they make his life much more difficult, and the same for the operators. It may just be more simple to launch more missiles hoping to saturate the defenses, but this increases the attackers costs and most likely decreases the number of attacks he can make. This still seems to yield a slight net win for the defender.
I'm not so certain of that. Lasers work well against missiles because they have such thin skins. There isn't a class of stationary targets anywhere nearly as sensitive or vulnerable.
Assuming of course that people don't visit YouTube, find it 'broken' and go on to one of the other video streaming sites. So yeah, it does have to power to effect change. It also has the power to shoot itself in the foot with an atomic cannon.
And dangit, you want it to *stay* that way so you can feel elitist and justified in telling those kids to get off of your lawn!
It's not tricky with the bang-bang type of controller typical of consumer systems which are heating and cooling relatively tolerant loads like people. Where it gets tricky is where you need to maintain a steady state temperature and flow in order to avoid disruption of sensitive electronics.
(IOW: I get really annoyed when slashdotters say "all you need is 'X'", without the slightest clue as to what the real requirements or complexities are.)
The problem is ensure the coating actually burns off cleanly (leaving no residue to be heated by the incoming energy) and couples no sigificant heat to the mirror below. That's a pretty tall order.
That's going to be a significantly thick and heavy duty coating. I suspect it will couple enough energy into the mirror anyway that it might harm as much as it helps.
Unlikely. It needs to be a front surface mirror, or else the laser will simply take effect in whatever (glass or plastic) makes up the front portion of the mirror. Even if it is a front surface mirror, such mirrors are very susceptible to scratches, dings, oxidation, and other damage that will render it vulnerable. Even minor amounts of corrosion or staining (invisible to the naked eye) can compromise the protection the mirror provides and you can't put a protective coating on the mirror to protect it from such...
Not to mention that such a delicate and vulnerable coating is incompatible with the handling and operational environment of the battlefield missiles the ABL is designed to work against.
And, before anyone asks, pretty much the same is true of spinning the missile. Spinning introduces a whole host of significant problems for the missile designer.
I hate to point this out to you, but "saw the movies as adults" means "saw the movies as adults", not "saw the movies as [over thirty] adults [and then saw all six at once]". Had the OP meant that, I assume that's what he'd have said.
So either he needs to learn to write, or you need to learn to read. I suspect the latter based on the rest of his post.
They too were young when they saw the original movies - everything is better when you're younger. That's the grandparent's entire point.
One thing I've found over the years, that what "everyone knows" is usually false.
What I find more interesting that you've decided they're guilty, seemingly on little to no evidence and contrary to the results of official investigations.
You're correct. Your paranoia seems to require no further fuel.
Nice try, but go back and read the very words you quoted from him.
Things "you don't want anyone to know about" aren't the same as "things that are nobody's business" in that the first are generally things you are trying to hide to avoid potential consequences.
In fact, Ivan Kurchatov (in charge of developing the first Soviet nuclear weapons) specifically kept the intelligence he was provided away from his subordinates. He used the data as an 'answer key' to compare to the results of their work and tests they brought him - and if they got it wrong, he just sent them back to try again (usually without giving them any hints).
By the time of STS-5, the Shuttle had accumulated more hypersonic flight than all other US programs to date combined. Even with the test programs run since then, the Shuttle still represent better than 99% of our hypersonic flight experience according to an aerodynamicist I know.
The boosters (both liquid and solid), the main engines and their controllers, the reaction control systems, the flight control computers, the guidance and navigation system... There's more, but that will do for a partial list. All valuable technologies.
While the Shuttle as a whole is obsolete, many of its component technologies are still valuable and useful today.
I suspect many Slashdotters believe that since the Shuttle is a 70's era design it must be the equivalent of a 70's era computer - a dinosaur that's completely obsolete and nothing but a historical curiosity. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the first place, much of the Shuttle's electronics have been routinely upgraded over the years. In the second place, if you don't have the tech then even old but fully functional tech can serve as a valuable springboard. Even if you do have the tech, old tech from someone else can give you insights for your own research and development. Then there are are things like the SSME, items that are even today are on the bleeding edge. Not to mention technologies like the RCC which have immediate military application even though the basic design and technology is forty odd years old.
This is the same reason the USN still classifies the nuclear reactor technology onboard the USS Nautilus, even though she was built in 1954 and decommissioned in 1980. The theory of nuclear power is very simple, but actually designing, building, and operating one... not so much. Doubly so with a specialized engineering niche like a compact high power nuclear plant. Technology in the real world isn't like technology ladders or levels in games - just because two nations have developed the same broad technology, doesn't mean they have equivalent capabilities. Look at the problems the Russians had in developing safe and reliable submarine nuclear reactors for example. Or, look at how long it's taken the Indians (no technological slouches) to develop and build a homegrown submarine nuclear power plant - even with assistance from the Russians and a domestic nuclear power industry.
And that's the thing, in so many things they've tried they aren't dominant. They came late to the table without offering a clearly superior product and have suffered for it.
Facebook didn't 'beat' Google. They beat LiveJournal, and Myspace, and Friendster. Google wasn't even in the race as they never put any significant effort into Orkut or Jaiku.
I don't think they are going to fail, but they will have a hard time coming out near the top.