I don't argue that dispersion is a real effect but if it were a "significant" effect when we looked up into the nighttime sky we would see nothing but a blur of light. I'm no astrophysicist so correct me when I'm wrong.
Need I point out that stars aren't lasers? Apples and oranges. Read the webpage I cited, or google up 'laser divergence' - it's a well known effect.
I still think that pointing is the bug-a-boo of laser telecom.
I can't control what you believe - but physics works independent of your beliefs.
I think you are confusing water pressure (which is equivalent to the weight of the water column above you) with gravity which is pretty much the same at the bottom of the sea as it is on the surface. I will also point out that life happily exists at the bottom of our deepest ocean trenches, 35,000 feet down, where the pressure is about 16,000 psi. The fishies down there are made of "organic cell structures" and are not "instantly crushed from the pressure". "How can this be?" I hear you ask. Because the cells are filled with water, which as you have stated correctly (about the only thing correct in you entire post) does not compress.
Not entirely correct. If I drop a metal sphere filled with water into the ocean - it will implode (be crushed), because the pressure on the inside is less than the outside. The same is true of a flexible bladder.
The fishes (at the bottom of the ocean) don't implode because the water in their cells is at the same pressure as the water they swim in.
Please sit down and do the math. Do you realize the pointing requirements for what you suggest. With the best tech we have the laser would be swinging between Pluto and the Sun thinking it was right on target.
Yes, please do sit down and do the math. The dispersion of the beam would be great enough that even if the center of the beam was pointed at Pluto - the other side of Pluto's orbit would still be deep within the beam. Laser beams are damm near perfectly parallel for most ordinary human purposes - but they aren't perfectly parallel. This matters over extremely long distances. (The laser beam they shoot at the moon to reflect off of the Apollo retroreflectors is over a mile wide by the time it reaches the moon.)
Laser beam communication is still a dumb idea though - because even if Earth was at the center of the beam, we probably still couldn't collect enough photons.
Sure, at Earth's temperatures and atmospheric pressures, along with who knows how many other Earth-specific variables, water works great for what it does. But why can't some other molecule in vastly different conditions serve the same purpose elsewhere?
It's called chemistry - and regardless of the planet that life appears on, chemistry follows the same rules. Folks have looked, with no sucess, for other possible reactions that can support life.
Hey, have you read Thomas Gold's book, THE DEEP BIOSPHERE? He believed that there are micro-organisms; just as you've described, living all through the Earth's crust, that excrete hydrocarbons and thus are the source of natural gas and petroleum. Thus there never was or will be "peak oil"; we'll never run out of "fossil" fuels because they're always being replenished.
Among other things, Thomas Gold also was convinced that the surface of the moon was a thin fragile crust over deep dust - and that the Apollo LEM could break through the crust and disappear. Despite other evidence that this could not possibly be true, he managed to accumulate enough clout to convince NASA the redesign the LEM's landing gear to function as if his theory was correct. The result was the much heavier gear that actually flew - with its wide stance, complex and heavy extension system, and large (and heavy) footpads.
He has a long history of loopy ideas that are, to put it charitably, completely disconnected from reality.
It seems to me that cost+breadth gives the Wikipedia CD a reason to be. If you can't afford an encyclopedia but want something available even when you can't get to the Internet, it seems to be a huge bargain.
At 2k articles... not much breadth there to be had. In fact, browsing the list of included articles - there seems to be an overall scheme for organization, but the actual selection is virtually random. Giving someone this CD as an actual reference would be doing them a disservice.
I have tried chocolate from abroad - and I find the same mix of low and high end chocolate that one finds here in America. (One cannot go simply one what tourists bring back, as they tend to bring back the finest.)
Look, the show never said it was teaching people about science.
No, they have never openly said it was about science. But with their talk of 'models' and 'experiments' and 'controls' and 'variables' - they sure as hell work awful hard at making it look like science.
It's not just about what you say - it's also about what you do and how you present it.
If nothing else, Mythbusters gets people interested in the process of examining life, not teaching how to use proper scientific method. If their only accomplishment is making people critically question things that are usually taken at face value, they'll have succeeded in my mind.
Critically questioning requires the ability to form critical questions - which implies the ability to analyze and logically examine the thing you are questioning as well as applying the same methods to the answers. If you don't teach those methods you get people who question everything - but are unable to evaluate the answers they recieve. If you can't evaluate the answers - you are no better off than if you hadn't asked the question in the first place.
I always laugh a little when people feel clever pointing out little problems with MB episodes. Anyone who thinks they're meant to be rigorous experiments is missing the whole point of the show.
People tend to believe they are rigorous experiments because the Mythbusters present them as if they were rigorous experiments.
Anyone who watches Mythbusters for scientific reasons should maybe start watching Startrek instead. This is all entrtainment, it has nothing to do with scientific accuracy.
I wouldn't have a problem with that - if they didn't cloak their entertainment with an air of science and accuracy.
The international acedemy of science awarded Bussard & team the "Outstanding technology of the year award" last year
So? The International Academy of Science appears to be a tiny special interest association, mostly concerned with promoting the 'Acellus Learning System'. (And the list of other nominees is impressive with its concentration on consumer electronics.)
This 'award' is about as impressive and meaningful as being the Man of the Year for the East Podunk Elk's Club.
It looks like Bussard is finally getting the attention he deserves
If you think about it, one of the most significant difficulties with building nuclear power plants is the "not in my backyard" problem.
There is very little ocean that is a) within the (legal) control of the US that is b) not in somebody's backyard. Just for one example.
Benefits:
1) No immediate population centers. This gives any fallout time to disperse in case of a major failure. 2) Portability. Aside from the commercial advantages (shift reactors to high demand areas, no building costs for new locations/shutdown and cleanup costs for areas suddenly with low demand, etc) things like this could be moved off the coasts of disaster regions to provide major power to devastated areas quickly. 3) If they build it to be submersible, they can simply ride out any storm below the wave level. This means a lot of the extreme construction required for fixed-target plant defenses (storm and hostile) becomes less critical.
You should look at maps of the coasts of many nations - almost none are unpopulated. Either 3 or 12 miles away from the coast is the furthest they can be placed - not nearly far away enough for the fallout from a major accident.
You might as well view these as fixed installations - because they are only going to be placed where there's a need for them, they aren't cheap. (And niether are the enviromental impact studies, or the anchorages.) Power is far better moved via powerlines.
You don't even want to think about the complexity and difficulty involved it doing this.
White space, fonts and text density are minor concerns to me (intense reader for decades). Computers are fine for relaxed reads, but for long texts, the medium's just wrong: I prefer paper books.
They are minor concerns for you because printers, graphic artists, font creators, and typographers have spent decades (centuries) perfecting their art - to the point to which it is now invisible to you even as you enjoy the benefits.
I know the Land Warrior system sucks - I've taken prototypes into the field for the first time, and I *know* the pain and problems they can cause. (One broke other tactical gear when it was turned on - but you'd have never known that until is was installed and turned on at sea.) But this is a first generation system - and it won't get any better unless it gets tested in the field and problems with it clearly documented. Any unit that is issued it, and simply leaves it in the supply cage is failing at their duty to their brothers.
So far as the rest of your posts go - what they show is an unwillingness to learn and adapt to new gear (as opposed to new shiny bits).
In this case - the Slashdot posters are probably right. (Unusual but true.)
Since the fall of the Wall, Russian engineers (and the the goverment) have proposed all manner of ludicrous megaprojects - mostly (it seems) to create/maintain the impression that Russia and the CIS are truly Great Nations rather than the third world nations they mostly are.
That reminds me that the "Chunnel" was completed by starting on both ends and meeting in the middle, and IIRC, when they met, after several miles of digging in both directions, they were off by about a foot in one direction and 2 inches in the other (i.e., horizontal vs. vertical).
*yawn*. Only people who get their science and engineering information from press releases were impressed. The Chunnel used standard surveying techniques pioneered in the 1800's (although with a longer baseline than previously attempted), and came out with exactly the results they expected - this isn't news.
These guys ain't on a damned boat. Different world.
At the end of the day? No it isn't. NCO's across all the services have the same basic responsibilities.
And if I had a Sgt. who wouldn't speak the truth, I wouldn't consider him worth a damn. If the ability to accomplish a mission is compromised by useless gear or a fucked up plan, and he's the only one who sees it, I want to KNOW!
I agree 100%. That's precisely what I said - if you bother to read and think about it.
Good input is more important to me than people who speak smoothly.
Agreed 100%! That's why I noted his odd phraseology - because it was "smooth", rather than good input. "We don't use it" is only half the story. The real question is "why?".
Well, I served as a Sergeant (Army). The job of the Sergeant, at least in my units, was to make sure everyone was effective and on-mission.
Sure, that's your job (or at least part of it), in the field or on exercise. But you know well there is a whole supporting pyramid below that.
The problem is that you read what I wrote/quoted - but you didn't bother to think about it. The quoted Sgt didn't say it had problems, didn't say it didn't work, didn't say it interfered with his mission... he said they didn't use it. Now I know this is a quote - but that is very odd phraseology.
Having actually served in the military (unlike many Slashdotters), bitching about your gear is an old and honorable prequisite of the soldier, sailor, and airman. (That is bitching among yourselves or your bretheren. Outsiders and those senior to you get, unless the seniors ask specifically, the standard "works fine, lasts a long time, drains to the aft missle compartment bilge" routine.)
From TFA
"It's just a bunch of stuff we don't use, taking the place of useful stuff like guns,"
I heard this pretty much every time new gear came to the boat. It was never as useful as the old stuff, and breaks more often too. (Sometimes, _very_ rarely, it's actually true.) Sounds like a Seargeant that needs to be busted and someone who will do the job put in his place. The job of a Sgt. is to teach people how to use and integrate the gear into their tactics. If his people don't or won't use the gear - it's his job to find out why, and report the same up the chain.
My WAP is open. It is intentionally so. My neighbours or anyone just generally passing by are free to share it. And people frequently do, according to my router's logs. It's not that I'm constantly needing those 6 MBit myself, so why would I mind anyone else using them. I see the fact that the network is unprotected as invitation enough for anyone to join in.
You may see it as so. But the law disagrees. In fact the law (in this instance) is consistent with locks on doors, etc... Absence of a lock is not indicative of permission to enter. This makes sense because, lacking signs, there is no way to tell the difference between a WAP you are encouraged to enter, and one where the owner forgot to lock his door.
Slashdot Mirror
Need I point out that stars aren't lasers? Apples and oranges. Read the webpage I cited, or google up 'laser divergence' - it's a well known effect.
I can't control what you believe - but physics works independent of your beliefs.
Since the toasters weren't mascots, why should they be on the list?
Not entirely correct. If I drop a metal sphere filled with water into the ocean - it will implode (be crushed), because the pressure on the inside is less than the outside. The same is true of a flexible bladder.
The fishes (at the bottom of the ocean) don't implode because the water in their cells is at the same pressure as the water they swim in.
Yes, please do sit down and do the math. The dispersion of the beam would be great enough that even if the center of the beam was pointed at Pluto - the other side of Pluto's orbit would still be deep within the beam. Laser beams are damm near perfectly parallel for most ordinary human purposes - but they aren't perfectly parallel. This matters over extremely long distances. (The laser beam they shoot at the moon to reflect off of the Apollo retroreflectors is over a mile wide by the time it reaches the moon.)
Laser beam communication is still a dumb idea though - because even if Earth was at the center of the beam, we probably still couldn't collect enough photons.
It's called chemistry - and regardless of the planet that life appears on, chemistry follows the same rules. Folks have looked, with no sucess, for other possible reactions that can support life.
Among other things, Thomas Gold also was convinced that the surface of the moon was a thin fragile crust over deep dust - and that the Apollo LEM could break through the crust and disappear. Despite other evidence that this could not possibly be true, he managed to accumulate enough clout to convince NASA the redesign the LEM's landing gear to function as if his theory was correct. The result was the much heavier gear that actually flew - with its wide stance, complex and heavy extension system, and large (and heavy) footpads.
He has a long history of loopy ideas that are, to put it charitably, completely disconnected from reality.
It's true - even if pedantic. And the difference is important - because a Law or a Theory has predictive power, and an observation doesn't.
At 2k articles... not much breadth there to be had. In fact, browsing the list of included articles - there seems to be an overall scheme for organization, but the actual selection is virtually random. Giving someone this CD as an actual reference would be doing them a disservice.
I have tried chocolate from abroad - and I find the same mix of low and high end chocolate that one finds here in America. (One cannot go simply one what tourists bring back, as they tend to bring back the finest.)
No, they have never openly said it was about science. But with their talk of 'models' and 'experiments' and 'controls' and 'variables' - they sure as hell work awful hard at making it look like science.
It's not just about what you say - it's also about what you do and how you present it.
Critically questioning requires the ability to form critical questions - which implies the ability to analyze and logically examine the thing you are questioning as well as applying the same methods to the answers. If you don't teach those methods you get people who question everything - but are unable to evaluate the answers they recieve. If you can't evaluate the answers - you are no better off than if you hadn't asked the question in the first place.
People tend to believe they are rigorous experiments because the Mythbusters present them as if they were rigorous experiments.
I wouldn't have a problem with that - if they didn't cloak their entertainment with an air of science and accuracy.
Yes - he wants to ignore the original versions so badly that he re-released them last December.
So? The International Academy of Science appears to be a tiny special interest association, mostly concerned with promoting the 'Acellus Learning System'. (And the list of other nominees is impressive with its concentration on consumer electronics.)
This 'award' is about as impressive and meaningful as being the Man of the Year for the East Podunk Elk's Club.
On what basis does he 'deserve' attention?
Many slashdot readers imagine all manner of ludicrous things. Sometimes the even remember them when they sober up or the high wears off.
There is very little ocean that is a) within the (legal) control of the US that is b) not in somebody's backyard. Just for one example.
They are minor concerns for you because printers, graphic artists, font creators, and typographers have spent decades (centuries) perfecting their art - to the point to which it is now invisible to you even as you enjoy the benefits.
I know the Land Warrior system sucks - I've taken prototypes into the field for the first time, and I *know* the pain and problems they can cause. (One broke other tactical gear when it was turned on - but you'd have never known that until is was installed and turned on at sea.) But this is a first generation system - and it won't get any better unless it gets tested in the field and problems with it clearly documented. Any unit that is issued it, and simply leaves it in the supply cage is failing at their duty to their brothers.
So far as the rest of your posts go - what they show is an unwillingness to learn and adapt to new gear (as opposed to new shiny bits).
In this case - the Slashdot posters are probably right. (Unusual but true.)
Since the fall of the Wall, Russian engineers (and the the goverment) have proposed all manner of ludicrous megaprojects - mostly (it seems) to create/maintain the impression that Russia and the CIS are truly Great Nations rather than the third world nations they mostly are.
This proposed project is just more of the same.
*yawn*. Only people who get their science and engineering information from press releases were impressed. The Chunnel used standard surveying techniques pioneered in the 1800's (although with a longer baseline than previously attempted), and came out with exactly the results they expected - this isn't news.
At the end of the day? No it isn't. NCO's across all the services have the same basic responsibilities.
I agree 100%. That's precisely what I said - if you bother to read and think about it.
Agreed 100%! That's why I noted his odd phraseology - because it was "smooth", rather than good input. "We don't use it" is only half the story. The real question is "why?".
"And I'm the happiest sailor in the fleet!"
Sure, that's your job (or at least part of it), in the field or on exercise. But you know well there is a whole supporting pyramid below that.
The problem is that you read what I wrote/quoted - but you didn't bother to think about it. The quoted Sgt didn't say it had problems, didn't say it didn't work, didn't say it interfered with his mission... he said they didn't use it. Now I know this is a quote - but that is very odd phraseology.
From TFA
I heard this pretty much every time new gear came to the boat. It was never as useful as the old stuff, and breaks more often too. (Sometimes, _very_ rarely, it's actually true.) Sounds like a Seargeant that needs to be busted and someone who will do the job put in his place. The job of a Sgt. is to teach people how to use and integrate the gear into their tactics. If his people don't or won't use the gear - it's his job to find out why, and report the same up the chain.
You may see it as so. But the law disagrees. In fact the law (in this instance) is consistent with locks on doors, etc... Absence of a lock is not indicative of permission to enter. This makes sense because, lacking signs, there is no way to tell the difference between a WAP you are encouraged to enter, and one where the owner forgot to lock his door.