Almost anyone could make an A-bomb if they had sufficient amount of weapons grade uranium 235, or plutonium. The real challenge is extracting the uranium 235 isotope from uranium ore.
That depends on your goal. If all you want is a crude terrorist weapon, then yes, obtaining the fissionables is your greatest challenge. If you want a reliable and deliverable weapon that constitutes a functional strategic deterrent (as Iran does), then you have a significant number of engineering challenges on top of that.
Even Wikipedia has enough detail on both purification and bomb building to give you a good head start. I don't think the challenge is the lack of theoretical knowledge or the process, but technology to do so.
Having a 'good head start' isn't the same as having 'an actual functional design'. Ask SpaceX, for example, how easy it is to build a reliable booster even with an incredible head start, material and equipment available on the open market, tons of detailed information available in the open literature, and college graduates specifically trained in the art of designing and building such boosters. Then consider the issues Iraq faces in building a functional weapon when they have exactly none of those things available to them.
Doesn't that just proof that they have Internet access?
Nope.
While the basic data on nuclear weapons is widely available, so is the basic data on how to build the Saturn V booster. But there's a great deal of engineering, testing, and development between that basic data and a functional strategic weapon. Sure, practically anyone can design and build a crude device by piling sufficient fissionables and explosives... But what Iran seeks something a bit more refined, a reliable and deliverable design (what in the trade is known as 'weaponized') that provides a credible deterrent. This is a somewhat harder problem.
In Japan I could travel 600km in 3hours for 120$. With no ticket before hand and trains leaving every 15minutes.
Quite frankly, who the fuck cares? While Japan has half the population of the US it has something like 2% of the land area of the lower 48, and because of geography that population is crammed into only a small portion of that area - leading to high population densities and having only a (relatively) small number of important cities close together.
You could just as usefully compare fish and bicycles.
Most other states probably wouldn't have the numbers of people to justify building it. Imagine a state in the midwest asking for 5 billion so that the tiny train riding population can ride in style. Ya right. So if by any state you mean New York and surrounding area then yes.
You most likely have not lived east of the Mississippi. There are HUGE swaths of populations that could use fast, convenient mass transportation. Not just New York and "surrounding areas." Think the entire eastern seaboard. Think Chicago to New York. Think St. Louis to Atlanta. Don't think they're big enough? Check the size of these metropolitan areas and some of the cities running between them.
I *have* lived east of the Mississippi - and the OP is correct. Outside of California and a very few locations on the east coast, this kind of train doesn't make sense.
If you don't want to compare metro areas, fine. But then you might as well knock out SF - it's quite small in comparison to many other eastern cities.
It's not about physical size, it's about the amount of traffic between them - which is considerable on the LA-to-SF route. The St Louis-to-Atlanta route you cite above would be a virtual ghost town. (The only other major city such a route passes near, without hundreds of miles of of incredibly expensive detour, is Nashville.) A Chicago-to-New York route on the other hand, would be quite busy, but hideously expensive. In fact, if you aren't connecting to New York, I can't think of any route whose traffic would justify the expense.
I suspect that assessment is incorrect, on the grounds that a lot of environmentalists tend to be in *favor* of such trains, on the theory that they reduce motor vehicle traffic.
They're in favor of the *theory* of such trains, it remains to be seen if they will accept the inevitable environmental damage which comes with the actual existence/construction of the trackage and infrastructure.
a refusal to increase taxes means that much more of the limited government revenue is going into the black hole that is the prison system. Because of this, pretty much every aspect of California's selection of services have been significantly cut back for at least a decade now.
Oh, it goes back much further than a decade - it all starts with Proposition 13. (Most Slashdotters are probably too young to even remember it.)
They had the tools, the knowledge, and the source code to make a difference. Also, the gameplay encouraged thinking, not just endless grinding for quest items and prof materials.
They also had endless spare time to tinker... No way you could ever pay a development team to spend the kind of hours hobbyists used to spend on MUSH/MUD development.
It seems that a lot of the early reviews are complaining that when they use like a real-time forum, it gets too busy. When a reviewer claims that he's chatting to 12 people at once and it's too much of a time sink - what is he comparing it to?
The prelaunch hype by Google and Google fanboys.
I'd like to read a review by somebody that knows what that they're talking about.
Translation: "I don't agree with this review, and thus the reviewer is at fault and ignorant for not agreeing with me. Even though he has seen the software and I... haven't".
So long as you have no experience with coherent linear conversations, yeah, Gmail provides an excellent simulacrum of what you might think one looks like.
It's interesting how many of the objections to the review don't address anything technical (which they haven't seen anyway) about Wave (other than to insist that despite what anyone says "it's way cool, it's Google, it's cool by default, four legs good, two legs bad"), but instead concentrate on ad hominem attacks on the author.
The mobile providers wouldn't even notice such a mesh. It doesn't cover long distance (without using the providers networks), lacks the bandwidth to support a significant number of users (without using the providers networks), can't allow significant internet access without somebody paying the bills for the connection...
And sure as hell a people aren't going to tolerate the loss of battery life and increase in their bills to support 'freeloading'.
Which, given the fact that fairings don't particularly represent a difficult design or development problem [1], indicates that something (major) is wrong at SpaceX. They're putting a good spin on it, but that doesn't change the basic nature.
[1] My mistake, I acted as if you actually knew this rather than just cutting and pasting words you don't understand.
From your original article, the biggest problem isn't NASA, it's the shortsighted, braindead, slimy, backhanded, hypocritical, nonsensical, bat-shit-insane, idiocratic and just plain old corrupt congress.
It's not just Congress - it's the Administration. (Remember NASA is part of the Executive Branch.) It's not NASA's job to have a Vision, it's NASA's job to work within and in support of the policies of the Administration and the Goverment.
NASA has floundered for decades because sucessive Administrations haven't provided clear leadership, unambiguous policy, and rational missions (as in Agency mission, not space missions) - and then to make it worse hasn't backed up what little it has provided with political support and capital and funding.
This makes sense. Falcon 9 is uninsurable without a successful launch, so it cannot be used to launch a valuable satellite payload.
Which is irrelevant, it's actually fairly unusual for a booster (even in it's test phase) to not carry a commercial or government payload. This sounds more like, after the debacle the Falcon I has been to date, nobody is willing to risk their payload even for the reduced prices (sometimes even free) that such launches usually charge. This seems especially true given a) the late date the launch schedule has been announced, and b) the late date the payload for the first flight has been announced.
Furthermore, NASA's space station supply contract is potentially far more lucrative than participating in the competitive market for satellite launch services.
Horseshit. The commercial market is already far larger than NASA's *entire* market, of which the space station contract is only a portion.
Could someone send a copy of the applicable amendments and supporting court decisions to Washington State?
No, they can't - because they don't exist. I don't know of anywhere in the country where traffic violations (that is, those that don't count as misdemeanors or other criminal violations) are treated as criminal violations - which do require a trial by jury. IOW, the OP is just making shit up.
Slashdot Mirror
That depends on your goal. If all you want is a crude terrorist weapon, then yes, obtaining the fissionables is your greatest challenge. If you want a reliable and deliverable weapon that constitutes a functional strategic deterrent (as Iran does), then you have a significant number of engineering challenges on top of that.
Having a 'good head start' isn't the same as having 'an actual functional design'. Ask SpaceX, for example, how easy it is to build a reliable booster even with an incredible head start, material and equipment available on the open market, tons of detailed information available in the open literature, and college graduates specifically trained in the art of designing and building such boosters. Then consider the issues Iraq faces in building a functional weapon when they have exactly none of those things available to them.
Nope.
While the basic data on nuclear weapons is widely available, so is the basic data on how to build the Saturn V booster. But there's a great deal of engineering, testing, and development between that basic data and a functional strategic weapon. Sure, practically anyone can design and build a crude device by piling sufficient fissionables and explosives... But what Iran seeks something a bit more refined, a reliable and deliverable design (what in the trade is known as 'weaponized') that provides a credible deterrent. This is a somewhat harder problem.
Quite frankly, who the fuck cares? While Japan has half the population of the US it has something like 2% of the land area of the lower 48, and because of geography that population is crammed into only a small portion of that area - leading to high population densities and having only a (relatively) small number of important cities close together.
You could just as usefully compare fish and bicycles.
I *have* lived east of the Mississippi - and the OP is correct. Outside of California and a very few locations on the east coast, this kind of train doesn't make sense.
It's not about physical size, it's about the amount of traffic between them - which is considerable on the LA-to-SF route. The St Louis-to-Atlanta route you cite above would be a virtual ghost town. (The only other major city such a route passes near, without hundreds of miles of of incredibly expensive detour, is Nashville.) A Chicago-to-New York route on the other hand, would be quite busy, but hideously expensive. In fact, if you aren't connecting to New York, I can't think of any route whose traffic would justify the expense.
They're in favor of the *theory* of such trains, it remains to be seen if they will accept the inevitable environmental damage which comes with the actual existence/construction of the trackage and infrastructure.
Oh, it goes back much further than a decade - it all starts with Proposition 13. (Most Slashdotters are probably too young to even remember it.)
They also had endless spare time to tinker... No way you could ever pay a development team to spend the kind of hours hobbyists used to spend on MUSH/MUD development.
Well, duh. If you read and comprehended my post - I specified exactly that.
The prelaunch hype by Google and Google fanboys.
Translation: "I don't agree with this review, and thus the reviewer is at fault and ignorant for not agreeing with me. Even though he has seen the software and I... haven't".
So long as you have no experience with coherent linear conversations, yeah, Gmail provides an excellent simulacrum of what you might think one looks like.
It's interesting how many of the objections to the review don't address anything technical (which they haven't seen anyway) about Wave (other than to insist that despite what anyone says "it's way cool, it's Google, it's cool by default, four legs good, two legs bad"), but instead concentrate on ad hominem attacks on the author.
The mobile providers wouldn't even notice such a mesh. It doesn't cover long distance (without using the providers networks), lacks the bandwidth to support a significant number of users (without using the providers networks), can't allow significant internet access without somebody paying the bills for the connection...
And sure as hell a people aren't going to tolerate the loss of battery life and increase in their bills to support 'freeloading'.
[[citation needed]]
Ah yes, the 'handwaving smokescreen' from of 'proof'.
Which, given the fact that fairings don't particularly represent a difficult design or development problem [1], indicates that something (major) is wrong at SpaceX. They're putting a good spin on it, but that doesn't change the basic nature.
[1] My mistake, I acted as if you actually knew this rather than just cutting and pasting words you don't understand.
Any number of other boosters - there's nothing particularly revolutionary or new about it's design, construction, or manufacture.
If a fairing posed particularly difficult design and development problem - you'd have a point.
That's one flight... There was more than one.
That's one booster. There is more than one booster.
Facts only fail to refute your claims when you ignore them. But then, that seems to be par for your course.
If the Falcon I was 'non-evolutionary', you'd have a point.
It's not just Congress - it's the Administration. (Remember NASA is part of the Executive Branch.) It's not NASA's job to have a Vision, it's NASA's job to work within and in support of the policies of the Administration and the Goverment.
NASA has floundered for decades because sucessive Administrations haven't provided clear leadership, unambiguous policy, and rational missions (as in Agency mission, not space missions) - and then to make it worse hasn't backed up what little it has provided with political support and capital and funding.
Which is irrelevant, it's actually fairly unusual for a booster (even in it's test phase) to not carry a commercial or government payload. This sounds more like, after the debacle the Falcon I has been to date, nobody is willing to risk their payload even for the reduced prices (sometimes even free) that such launches usually charge. This seems especially true given a) the late date the launch schedule has been announced, and b) the late date the payload for the first flight has been announced.
Horseshit. The commercial market is already far larger than NASA's *entire* market, of which the space station contract is only a portion.
No, they can't - because they don't exist. I don't know of anywhere in the country where traffic violations (that is, those that don't count as misdemeanors or other criminal violations) are treated as criminal violations - which do require a trial by jury. IOW, the OP is just making shit up.
Where it will promptly freeze and settle out back onto the surface.
First you must demonstrate the law to be unethical.
That falls into the same category as believing the earth is flat or only 6,000 years old. It's horseshit.
Ah. Now I understand - you think it's unethical to enforce the law, and thus those who enforce the law must be bullies.