Haven't found evidence of experiments in the past 100 years with 3000kms-1 spaceships. Closest I get is some spacecraft like Pioneer traveling just over 11.6kms-1. Yes there's been a lot of other interesting work done with accelerating SUBATOMIC PARTICLES, but I can hardly imagine you riding one of those. Oh wait, perhaps I can...
So you think 128 bit processors aren't coming? Where have you been in the past, oh, 40 years?
I personally think it's kind of silly of Microsoft, considering that they have historically offered piss-poor support for 64 bit processors, I don't know why suddenly there would be a rush for 128 bit support, unless it was for Windows 8 Ultimate Gold Pro where you get to pay $700 more so that you can actually run as many windows open as you want at the same time.
Or perhaps they'll need a 128 bit OS to do all that DRM number crunching cryptography stuff without slowing your machine down to a crawl.
Either way, companies DO plan ahead. It's logical to assume that Intel/AMD (if they are still around) will one day provide 128 bit, then 256 bit, then 512 bit processors. The wider your input stream into your CPU, the faster you can perform those operations. Increasing the clock speed has (barring any new technological discoveries) reached physical limits namely temperature and the speed of light- or at least electricity. So the only way to get faster is to a) add more cores and b) process more bits per cycle.
I grew up in those days. Those were the days when computers filled whole buildings, cost millions of dollars, and probably had around 64k of memory. Dad had one at the plant to do the payroll for 5000+ employees. I used to help him feed the punch-cards into the machine. It was expensive as hell, but cheaper than an accounting department dedicated to payroll.
I have seen techniques developed and machines created that have let us push back several boundaries, from imaging actual atoms, to seeing earth-sized exoplanets around other stars, even through different techniques.
However I do believe firmly in the law of diminishing returns. I think it's fairly easy to innovate, invest and create in fairly passive technologies - technologies that permit us to observe - by using telescopes across the planet synchronized by computer and internet into one huge telescope, or by putting small satellites in orbit, and using the diameter of the earth's orbit as a single telescope. Heck, if we got really serious we could cover the solar system in telescopes, and call it the VERY HUGE FRICKEN GYNORMOUS ARRAY, and see even more detail.
However taking several million tons and lifting them into orbit, maintaining that orbit, and then proposing to build and accelerate something really really heavy out of the solar system at a meaningful speed - just the logistics would require every resource on the planet for a very long time. Kudos to whoever discovers a cheaper way into orbit - but for now, it's an impossible fantasy for all your arguments about it on paper.
There have been countless counters in this thread reminding me about Newtonian physics breaking down at relativistic speeds. I'm not stupid and I am well aware of that. However we can't reach those speeds, ever. The energy required doesn't change. SOMETHING needs to be making those "relativistic" particles, and it won't be free. So it's a moot point. We're stuck with Newton forever.
No I didn't miss anything - see, when someone manages to accelerate anything bigger than a subatomic particle to an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, you are all talking out of your asses. Blah blah blah theory gobbledeegook but I think it works THIS way.
I'm a practical guy. When you reach (I'll be generous) 1% c (3,000 kms-1) with your spaceship, I'll think about revising the laws of Newtonian physics. However I would hate to think about the amount of energy you'd need just to reach 1% c, much less some greater fraction of it.
You cannae change the laws of physics, Jim. I don't know how spending billions of dollars shooting (less than a) handful of neutrons at exoplanets at some percentage of the speed of light will have any practical application.
There's no way around that one, and I don't care WHAT you use to accelerate your object. Rocket, ion drive, hyperdrive - you are always going to need a source of fuel, which is going to increase your mass, which is going to increase the amount of fuel you need, etc.
It doesn't matter how efficient your engine is, your top speed (and thus your range) will ALWAYS be limited by the mass of fuel you need to drag along with you to get there (and hopefully decelerate too). Never mind the perfect ecosystem required to keep a crew alive for decades/centuries. (Cue magical "suspended animation")
The ONLY exception to this is the "solar sail" concept, which relies on an external source of propulsion. However THAT is limited by your only being able to accelerate for a limited time until you get far enough away from a star that the particle density is essentially nil and acceleration stops.
Actually, Canonical offsets the "free" distribution of its Ubuntu OS by the fees it receives by charging for tech support for enterprise distributions. At least that's how I understand it. Still, as you said, it's a "non profit", whereas Microsoft is a for profit company.
Yes because it costs nothing to dedicate floor space and people to package and label and track products, and make sure they get on the right UPS/FedEx truck.
Sure, it could be built into the item's cost, but it doesn't cost the same to ship an item to New York or to Zimbabwe. Which is why it's usually listed as a separate charge. But hey, if you feel "ripped off", then don't buy it.
In the lead up to the vote, there were killings in Chicago
You obviously aren't aware that Rio de Janeiro is one of the most violent, gang-ridden cities in the world and I'm sure any Olympic committee member knows this. I doubt that a few murders in the week of the decision formed a significant part of that decision.
That means communications companies will soon be able to bring us 1000+ channels of infomercials and the same sports events for just $60 more per month, while at the same time capping our broadband usage at 2GB a month.
Change we can believe in, except the US has never changed its foreign policy, EVER.
It makes sense that any oil exporting nation would like to preserve its main source of revenue - OIL, and find alternative energy elsewhere. The more any oil exporter grows, be it Iran, Canada, Brazil or Venezuela, the more oil it needs for domestic consumption. Therefore exports are doomed to shrink - unless another source of energy can be found.
Of course it's soooo easy to spin this into a "hostile act" by the warmongering US, still irate because it was incompetent enough to deal with the fallout from its unsuccessful meddling in Iranian politics and sovereignty in the 70's (business as usual). But even in the worst case, islamic nations are not stupid. With the near anarchy in Pakistan, somehow no one seems to be mentioning the fact that THEY TOO have nukes, despite being a nation far less stable than Iran.
The funny thing is, the US is pulling out of Iraq (mission accomplished yet?) and struggling in Afghanistan. So everyone knows that for all the US bluster against Iran, it's just a bluff. The Russians/CIS will never tolerate a US occupied Iraq, Iran AND Afghanistan on their southern border, and the Chinese will never allow the US to interrupt their flow of oil from Iran - China's main source of the black gold.
So yeah, not only is this off topic, it's also NOT NEWS for anyone smart enough not to watch FOX or CNN.
Plus, seems like some $0.50 earplugs would be a good defense against this,
Not really. There's something called bone conduction, and it actually accounts for around 70% of your hearing. Your skull literally conducts the sound to your inner ear. This is also why your voice always sounds weird when you hear a recording of it played back to you.
So the 150 decibel annoying noise would probably only be around 95 decibels with earplugs, but even that is pretty loud. Especially if, as another poster noted, they were playing Celine Dion. Then it would be past the pain threshold.
Slashdot Mirror
[citation needed]
Haven't found evidence of experiments in the past 100 years with 3000kms-1 spaceships. Closest I get is some spacecraft like Pioneer traveling just over 11.6kms-1. Yes there's been a lot of other interesting work done with accelerating SUBATOMIC PARTICLES, but I can hardly imagine you riding one of those. Oh wait, perhaps I can...
without the hardware to support it
So you think 128 bit processors aren't coming? Where have you been in the past, oh, 40 years?
I personally think it's kind of silly of Microsoft, considering that they have historically offered piss-poor support for 64 bit processors, I don't know why suddenly there would be a rush for 128 bit support, unless it was for Windows 8 Ultimate Gold Pro where you get to pay $700 more so that you can actually run as many windows open as you want at the same time.
Or perhaps they'll need a 128 bit OS to do all that DRM number crunching cryptography stuff without slowing your machine down to a crawl.
Either way, companies DO plan ahead. It's logical to assume that Intel/AMD (if they are still around) will one day provide 128 bit, then 256 bit, then 512 bit processors. The wider your input stream into your CPU, the faster you can perform those operations. Increasing the clock speed has (barring any new technological discoveries) reached physical limits namely temperature and the speed of light- or at least electricity. So the only way to get faster is to a) add more cores and b) process more bits per cycle.
I grew up in those days. Those were the days when computers filled whole buildings, cost millions of dollars, and probably had around 64k of memory. Dad had one at the plant to do the payroll for 5000+ employees. I used to help him feed the punch-cards into the machine. It was expensive as hell, but cheaper than an accounting department dedicated to payroll.
I have seen techniques developed and machines created that have let us push back several boundaries, from imaging actual atoms, to seeing earth-sized exoplanets around other stars, even through different techniques.
However I do believe firmly in the law of diminishing returns. I think it's fairly easy to innovate, invest and create in fairly passive technologies - technologies that permit us to observe - by using telescopes across the planet synchronized by computer and internet into one huge telescope, or by putting small satellites in orbit, and using the diameter of the earth's orbit as a single telescope. Heck, if we got really serious we could cover the solar system in telescopes, and call it the VERY HUGE FRICKEN GYNORMOUS ARRAY, and see even more detail.
However taking several million tons and lifting them into orbit, maintaining that orbit, and then proposing to build and accelerate something really really heavy out of the solar system at a meaningful speed - just the logistics would require every resource on the planet for a very long time. Kudos to whoever discovers a cheaper way into orbit - but for now, it's an impossible fantasy for all your arguments about it on paper.
There have been countless counters in this thread reminding me about Newtonian physics breaking down at relativistic speeds. I'm not stupid and I am well aware of that. However we can't reach those speeds, ever. The energy required doesn't change. SOMETHING needs to be making those "relativistic" particles, and it won't be free. So it's a moot point. We're stuck with Newton forever.
if you could put enough energy into it.
Exactly. And where, pray, is this energy going to magically appear from?
+1 misinformative.
Reach that speed with a macroscopic object first, then we'll talk about relativistic physics for spaceships. Until then, Newton stands.
No I didn't miss anything - see, when someone manages to accelerate anything bigger than a subatomic particle to an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, you are all talking out of your asses. Blah blah blah theory gobbledeegook but I think it works THIS way.
I'm a practical guy. When you reach (I'll be generous) 1% c (3,000 kms-1) with your spaceship, I'll think about revising the laws of Newtonian physics. However I would hate to think about the amount of energy you'd need just to reach 1% c, much less some greater fraction of it.
You cannae change the laws of physics, Jim. I don't know how spending billions of dollars shooting (less than a) handful of neutrons at exoplanets at some percentage of the speed of light will have any practical application.
CALL ME WHEN YOU REACH A RELATIVISTIC SPEED... oh wait, you can't.
until then, KE = 1/2mv^2 stands.
KE = 1/2m*v^2
There's no way around that one, and I don't care WHAT you use to accelerate your object. Rocket, ion drive, hyperdrive - you are always going to need a source of fuel, which is going to increase your mass, which is going to increase the amount of fuel you need, etc.
It doesn't matter how efficient your engine is, your top speed (and thus your range) will ALWAYS be limited by the mass of fuel you need to drag along with you to get there (and hopefully decelerate too). Never mind the perfect ecosystem required to keep a crew alive for decades/centuries. (Cue magical "suspended animation")
The ONLY exception to this is the "solar sail" concept, which relies on an external source of propulsion. However THAT is limited by your only being able to accelerate for a limited time until you get far enough away from a star that the particle density is essentially nil and acceleration stops.
No, I'm not saying kill them off. Someone needs to clean the loo. Just manage their numbers so they don't become too much of a bother, wot eh?
Wait wait wait this is the "Argument" sketch, right?
Ding. Time's up.
Actually, Canonical offsets the "free" distribution of its Ubuntu OS by the fees it receives by charging for tech support for enterprise distributions. At least that's how I understand it. Still, as you said, it's a "non profit", whereas Microsoft is a for profit company.
Well of course the wealthy elite will be allowed to breed and live longer, while the serfs will be culled at regular intervals, through war, etc.
Business as usual, really. The more things change, the more things stay the same.
Yes because it costs nothing to dedicate floor space and people to package and label and track products, and make sure they get on the right UPS/FedEx truck.
Sure, it could be built into the item's cost, but it doesn't cost the same to ship an item to New York or to Zimbabwe. Which is why it's usually listed as a separate charge. But hey, if you feel "ripped off", then don't buy it.
I'm sorry my friend, but this is the 21st century and a lot of things these days are done this way...
Yes, because sheep like you just bend over and take it whenever a corp feels like screwing you.
People still use thepiratebay?
LOL
I know I'm getting old and my eyesight isn't what it used to be, but did you just end a sentence in a comma?
One grammar nazi deserves another... :)
In the lead up to the vote, there were killings in Chicago
You obviously aren't aware that Rio de Janeiro is one of the most violent, gang-ridden cities in the world and I'm sure any Olympic committee member knows this. I doubt that a few murders in the week of the decision formed a significant part of that decision.
SUV's are responsible for global warming. Damn them!
That means communications companies will soon be able to bring us 1000+ channels of infomercials and the same sports events for just $60 more per month, while at the same time capping our broadband usage at 2GB a month.
Change we can believe in, except the US has never changed its foreign policy, EVER.
It makes sense that any oil exporting nation would like to preserve its main source of revenue - OIL, and find alternative energy elsewhere. The more any oil exporter grows, be it Iran, Canada, Brazil or Venezuela, the more oil it needs for domestic consumption. Therefore exports are doomed to shrink - unless another source of energy can be found.
Of course it's soooo easy to spin this into a "hostile act" by the warmongering US, still irate because it was incompetent enough to deal with the fallout from its unsuccessful meddling in Iranian politics and sovereignty in the 70's (business as usual). But even in the worst case, islamic nations are not stupid. With the near anarchy in Pakistan, somehow no one seems to be mentioning the fact that THEY TOO have nukes, despite being a nation far less stable than Iran.
The funny thing is, the US is pulling out of Iraq (mission accomplished yet?) and struggling in Afghanistan. So everyone knows that for all the US bluster against Iran, it's just a bluff. The Russians/CIS will never tolerate a US occupied Iraq, Iran AND Afghanistan on their southern border, and the Chinese will never allow the US to interrupt their flow of oil from Iran - China's main source of the black gold.
So yeah, not only is this off topic, it's also NOT NEWS for anyone smart enough not to watch FOX or CNN.
The defective 4 winged bird was... made in China.
Plus, seems like some $0.50 earplugs would be a good defense against this,
Not really. There's something called bone conduction, and it actually accounts for around 70% of your hearing. Your skull literally conducts the sound to your inner ear. This is also why your voice always sounds weird when you hear a recording of it played back to you.
So the 150 decibel annoying noise would probably only be around 95 decibels with earplugs, but even that is pretty loud. Especially if, as another poster noted, they were playing Celine Dion. Then it would be past the pain threshold.
No, if they were using Celine Dion, there would have been fatalities.
I will wait for the fork. It shouldn't be more than a couple months.
Let's destroy the internet and go back to the stone age. Then surely there won't be any digital copying of copyrighted works...
As for piracy, I hear it's promoted more by a combination of ships and firearms - usually cannons or rocket launchers.