> I know we're all used to reading about large numbers, but $250 > million is a lot of money.
Yes, but this is taxpayer's money. Besides, you need to think like a politician (i.e., the ultimate PHB). The ships and ports are big and expensive, so obviously the associated computer system has to be big and expensive as well. Small, cost-effective solutions don't "create jobs".
Also note that it was taken as axiomatic that the heavens were perfect and that therefor the planets had to move at constant speed in perfect circles. Thus epicycles.
> But one wonders what they are doing to power those magnets. If the > reaction is occuring outside the engine, then they can't be > deriving power from the comustion.
This has nothing to do with combustion. It is a way of accelerating a plasma without touching it. This is important because when you touch a hot plasma you either cool the plasma or vaporize what you touch it with.
> I could all just be an over hyped side step of the issues...
They are sidestepping nothing. Achiving high ISP at high thrust is an important issue.
Though the German author says only a nuclear fusion (Kernfusionstriebwerk) engine could achieve the exhaust gas speeds of this plasma mhd thang, I think a fission engine (uber-NERVA) might suffice.
No purely thermal system can achieve these exhaust velocities. There are no materials that can withstand the temperatures.
These guys have come up with a way to accellerate a plasma with just magnetic fields: no electrodes need be exposed to the plasma.
> Probably slightly more importantly, using many of the cartoon > characters would also violate trademark law.
It's extremely unlikely that these marks are registered for use on semiconductor devices. Even if they were, there is no possibility here of confusing the public.
> The same goes for cartoon tattoos.
There might be a dilution argument in the case of tattoos.
Thats actually a good question, however, since the copyrighted material is not being used as a means to sell the chips, or to improve the chips, I would image this would fall under "Fair Use".
I doubt it.
If a tattoo artist did a Bugs Bunny tatto for me, would he be violating copyright because he charged me for it? I'm sure I wouldn't be because I didn't profit from it, but I see lots of toon tattos.
Copyright infringement does not depend on "profit". You would be a contributory infringer if you knew or had reason to know that the artist did not have permission.
Their 2nd stage "memorable information" security check is pretty much useless because, err.. its too long to remember, especially when its a number->letter scheme. so I keep it written down in my wallet.
So what? That doesn't render it useless. Is the money in your wallet useless?
> I didn't catch the ex- part the first look and thought "whaaaat?" > as I know the current White House occupation force is very > Microsoft Friendly and would never endorse such sentiments.
Totally eliminate Free Software at the cost of imdeminfying their programmers? Microsoft would love it.
I don't mind if advertisers want to finance Web sites. I just won't look at their ads. They shouldn't want me to anyway as there is no chance I'll buy their products.
> Would you "subscribe" to a website?
If I had any money and thought the site worth it, yes.
> Though, as mentioned already on this page, torpedos and subs aren't > our #1 threat - it's the single suicidal person, perhaps a diver > with a bomb.
And we sure wouldn't want to plan ahead for possible future threats, would we?
Re:Easy counter measures, not worth killing whales
on
Sonic Torpedo Defense
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
> This is like shooting down missles with lasers; just make a shiny > missile and the light bounces off without damaging it.
Utterly ineffective. At intensities high enough to be useful the electric field of the laser pulse rips electrons out of the surface of the target. This creates a plasma which absorbs more energy from the pulse, explodes, and blows a piece out of the surface. It makes no difference at all what material the target is made of or how it is polished. This effect has been experimentally verified.
It's also how LASIX works.
> You can probably render the sound blast torpedo killer worthless > just by skinning the torpedos in cheap appropriately sound > absorbing material. Perhaps a derivative of foam or rubber.
Neat idea, but doesn't it seem like it would be easy to program torpedoes to ignore? Ok, if it crushes them that's one thing, but false-detonation seems easily avoidable.
Torpedoes contain TNT (or similar explosives). You detonate TNT by hitting it really hard. The hitting is usually done with a small explosion, but a really powerful pulse of sound will do (in fact, it's the same thing).
Slashdot Mirror
> I know we're all used to reading about large numbers, but $250
> million is a lot of money.
Yes, but this is taxpayer's money. Besides, you need to think like a politician (i.e., the ultimate PHB). The ships and ports are big and expensive, so obviously the associated computer system has to be big and expensive as well. Small, cost-effective solutions don't "create jobs".
Also note that it was taken as axiomatic that the heavens were perfect and that therefor the planets had to move at constant speed in perfect circles. Thus epicycles.
You really ought to study some history some day.
If this is transparent aluminum then quartz is transparent silicon.
You aren't making any sense. What are you proposing?
> But one wonders what they are doing to power those magnets. If the
> reaction is occuring outside the engine, then they can't be
> deriving power from the comustion.
This has nothing to do with combustion. It is a way of accelerating a plasma without touching it. This is important because when you touch a hot plasma you either cool the plasma or vaporize what you touch it with.
> I could all just be an over hyped side step of the issues...
They are sidestepping nothing. Achiving high ISP at high thrust is an important issue.
These guys have come up with a way to accellerate a plasma with just magnetic fields: no electrodes need be exposed to the plasma.
The process may not be able to keep up with a very rapid increase in sea level.
> Probably slightly more importantly, using many of the cartoon
> characters would also violate trademark law.
It's extremely unlikely that these marks are registered for use on semiconductor devices. Even if they were, there is no possibility here of confusing the public.
> The same goes for cartoon tattoos.
There might be a dilution argument in the case of tattoos.
> Instead, just publicly announce your policy that you will NEVER use
> external email to communicate with customers.
Why do you think that would help? Banks already tell their customers that they will NEVER send them emails requesting account information.
> It may provide tantalising evidence that powered flight evolved
> twice.
At least three times: birds, bats, and bugs.
> It is the closest most will ever get to 'seeing' a top quark.
You figure there is some means whereby some will get closer?
> But how can that be when there's no definition of 'journalist'?
Any law which defines "journalist" is an attack on the First Amendment.
> You know for an administration that claims itself to be Republican,
> this is shockingly statist rhetoric.
Don't be shocked. All politicians are statist.
> How would this affect OSS projects?
That would depend on how the law was written. If Microsoft had any say in the matter, it would destroy Free Software.
> I didn't catch the ex- part the first look and thought "whaaaat?"
> as I know the current White House occupation force is very
> Microsoft Friendly and would never endorse such sentiments.
Totally eliminate Free Software at the cost of imdeminfying their programmers? Microsoft would love it.
> So who should pay for content if ads shouldn't?
I don't mind if advertisers want to finance Web sites. I just won't look at their ads. They shouldn't want me to anyway as there is no chance I'll buy their products.
> Would you "subscribe" to a website?
If I had any money and thought the site worth it, yes.
> why do you block ads?
Because I find them irritating.
> And with what?
Privoxy.
> Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
Don't watch TV.
> What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has
> too many?
Yes (but I very rarely buy magazines anyway).
I guess that must be why the Navy doesn't use sonar.
> Now we know you'll be RFID scanned, and up-sold...
...on the shoes you're wearing, as the brand, size and age of your
No one sells me, "up" or otherwise. Sometimes I buy. Sometimes I don't. I decide.
>
> shoes will be instantly known.
A brand, etc may be known. Or perhaps 15 or 20. Or perhaps none at all. None will have any connection with what I have on my feet.
Won't really matter, though. I never shop at WalMart.
> Though, as mentioned already on this page, torpedos and subs aren't
> our #1 threat - it's the single suicidal person, perhaps a diver
> with a bomb.
And we sure wouldn't want to plan ahead for possible future threats, would we?
> This is like shooting down missles with lasers; just make a shiny
> missile and the light bounces off without damaging it.
Utterly ineffective. At intensities high enough to be useful the electric field of the laser pulse rips electrons out of the surface of the target. This creates a plasma which absorbs more energy from the pulse, explodes, and blows a piece out of the surface. It makes no difference at all what material the target is made of or how it is polished. This effect has been experimentally verified.
It's also how LASIX works.
> You can probably render the sound blast torpedo killer worthless
> just by skinning the torpedos in cheap appropriately sound
> absorbing material. Perhaps a derivative of foam or rubber.
Failed freshman physics, did you?