That's just it--how close would you need to be to a city to make it worthwhile to lose 1/3 of your nuclear influence in the region Nuclear devices are going to be a very valuable commodity unless you have them in large numbers. And Iran--contrary to how people want to categorize them--is a state already unto itself. While it may support the goals of modern muslim terrorists, that's an entirely different story than having the same goals. The leaders of the modern muslim terrorist movement would like to establish an overarching, joined muslim hegemony in the region, something of a New Caliphate. Iran, however, doesn't have that same goal--it wants to become the dominant STATE in the region. So, how would nuking Tel Aviv in a surprise attack actually contribute toward the goal of being the dominant state? All it would achieve is Israeli nuclear retaliation--and THEY have enough nukes to just obliterate Tehran and as many other Iranian cities as they'd like. While it is tempting to think that the Iranians are crazy and capable of Anything, the truth is they're not crazy--they have goals. Understanding those goals (and, if they're contrary to those of the US, combating them) is important to reasonable policy. In this case, I'm not sure that it's unreasonable to just let them have the damned things and deal with them on equal footing as a nuclear power, albeit one that can't really blow anything up except as a suicide situation.
Sure, they could, but their chances of making that work are even lower. First of all, you can't shield these things so that they're undetectable--any Geiger counter within a reasonable range would pick up that much uranium. Also, it's not like the roads don't have checkpoints. Again, the likelihood of getting caught is way too high to risk the bomb-on-a-truck plan, even moreso than the bomb-on-a-boat plan.
LR
It is my understanding that Iran would like to build a uranium nuclear device. While these are impressive--and definitely make a big boom--they are not nearly as deadly or frightening as a plutonium nuclear device. The reason? Deliverability. While a plutonium nuclear explosive can be squeezed down to a pretty small size (to fit on the tip of a cruise missile, for example), a uranium device has to be pretty massive.
Essentially, while a plutonium device is a ball of plutonium surrounded by concentric spheres of perfectly timed explosives, a uranium device is the equivalent of a 5-inch diameter gun which fires a uranium slug at a uranium target. The advantage of a plutonium device is obvious: it's small. The disadvantage of a plutonium device is the fact that it's very, very difficult to get the timing right so that you don't incinerate the plutonium before it goes critical. Meanwhile, a uranium device is dirt-simple to develop once you have the material. However, these things are huge. So huge, in fact, that you need something the size of a B29 in order to deliver it. We're talking several tons here.
Incidentally, the US developed one of each during the Manhattan Project, culminating in the two dropped bombs: Little Boy and Fat Man (no prizes for guessing which is which). While the Plutonium devices needed to be tested to make sure it worked, the scientists didn't even bother to test a uranium explosive at full scale. They just dropped the sucker.
Basically, this boils down to a pretty simple reality: even if Iran develops a uranium device, they can't deliver it. They can't put it on a missile, and I think it's a 100% certainty that Israel (or anyone else, for that matter, though Israel is the most likely target) would shoot down anything the size of a B29 flying in from Iran. If I had to guess, I'd wager that's why the Bush administration doesn't seem terribly worried about Iran. North Korea is a different matter, but Iran just isn't as big of a threat as everyone seems to be making it out to be.
And as an aside, it's certainly tempting to say "well, they could just put it on a boat and hide it and float it to a port and explode it." However, there are a couple of problems. First of all, each nuclear device that Iran develops will be a sort of force-multiplier for its power in the region. So if it develops--say--three devices, that means that losing just one is going to be a dramatic blow to its power. If you say that there's a 50/50 chance that the device will actually make it to its target, there's just no way to rationalize that risk. Much better to use the threat as leverage. The Iranian leaders don't subscribe to Western modes of thought, but they're aren't utterly irrational.
I'm not entirely sure what science fiction the submitter has been reading, but to say that "most" science fiction is written by people who don't know what they're talking about isn't necessarily true. Gregory Benford, Greg Bear, Stephen Baxter, Charles Sheffield (and a whole host of others) have physics and astronomy backgrounds (PhDs). Other authors, such as Peter F. Hamilton, write SF that's got very good, very realistic science behind it... FTL travel and all.
Additionally, the statement that Einstein's rules can't be broken is probably true--but they can certainly be circumvented. Wormholes are one possibility--exotic matter and a few other advancements could make them quite possible. Another possibility is that there are alternate "universes" in the multiverse for whom the rules of distance is different. Use a wormhole to pop into one of those, travel, and pop back in, and you have FTL travel. Those are just a couple of possibilities, and they may or may not work. But the job of the SF writer is not to PROVE that their ideas will become reality. They just have to write it so that it can't be dispoven or dismissed.
Point being, to be good, thought-provoking science fiction, the author doesn't have to detail every step involved in making a particular aspect reality--it's just reasonable guessing, all the way along, as is every other part of science fiction. The point is to make one think about the possibilities, avoiding some and trying to work toward others. I wouldn't call that an "opiate."
As I recall, there was an issue (last year?) of Scientific American that had a contraption similar to this in discussion, but it was in the lab of an extremely well-respected scientist.
I can't remember the name or any specifics, but from what I remember, it doesn't have anything to do with gravity at all. Actually, it works on the electromagnetic (I think...sounds close to right) properties of matter to actually _repel_ objects. There were some calculations about the size of a spinning disk of superconducting material and power requirements. Sounds awfully like the story. Again, this doesn't violate any laws of physics because the energy put into the system is greater than the energy required to "push" the object up.
In short, it can negate gravity in about the same way that a rocket negates gravity. Just a little more convenient and probably more efficient. Don't be shocked if it works...but it's not "revolutionary" either.
Anyone want to help on the SciAm article? I can't remember details for the life of me...
Maybe Intel gave a lot of you the bird personally, and if they did, I'm sorry, but as to the rest of the anti-intel crowd...
/Begin Rant
I'm sorry, but people time and time again keep naming the big price difference as a reason to buy AMD.
Here are a few facts to ponder: the 2.0A Northwood will be priced at around $360. The 2000+ Athlon will be priced at around $330. Yes, that's a huge price difference there. "Oh, but the (dirty) RAMBUS" you say. The price of a 256 meg stick of Corsair "Value Select" PC2100 DDR-DRAM PC2100 from www.memman.com is $98. The price of a 256 meg stick of Corsair "Value Select" 800mhz RDRAM is *gasp* $108. Assuming you want to outfit a rig with 512 megs of ram, that is a grand total of a $50 price difference. Maybe I'm just a little too loose with money, but on a $700+ purchase, I don't think $50 will make the ultimate decision. And I haven't even bothered to mention the fact that P4s can now use DDR...so what's the problem with price, again?
There seems to be a hatred of the P4 among some people. I really don't understand it. Yes, Intel made a tradeoff between per-clock power and ghz...but if they can make up for the difference with higher clock speed, so what? As I understand it, it's like the difference between buying a fast car that can't haul a lot of stuff and buying a van that can haul lots of stuff. Just so long as the fast car is able to go fast enough so it can make a few more trips (and thus transport the same amount) then it doesn't matter _how_ it got done. Also, continuing with the analogy, it seems the fast little car can go about 25% faster than its rated speed. According to most reviews, these overclock like a dream.
People who are against a product simply because it has the name "Intel" stamped on it are no better that IT departments that refuse to buy anything _not_ stamped with the Intel logo.
As is the mantra of capitalism, competition is good. However, for there to be competition, people can't just blindly stick to one brand. I'm not saying that the Northwoods are good enough to make someone switch, but they at least deserve a chance.
Slashdot Mirror
That was Ben Franklin. Not a president.
That's just it--how close would you need to be to a city to make it worthwhile to lose 1/3 of your nuclear influence in the region Nuclear devices are going to be a very valuable commodity unless you have them in large numbers. And Iran--contrary to how people want to categorize them--is a state already unto itself. While it may support the goals of modern muslim terrorists, that's an entirely different story than having the same goals. The leaders of the modern muslim terrorist movement would like to establish an overarching, joined muslim hegemony in the region, something of a New Caliphate. Iran, however, doesn't have that same goal--it wants to become the dominant STATE in the region. So, how would nuking Tel Aviv in a surprise attack actually contribute toward the goal of being the dominant state? All it would achieve is Israeli nuclear retaliation--and THEY have enough nukes to just obliterate Tehran and as many other Iranian cities as they'd like. While it is tempting to think that the Iranians are crazy and capable of Anything, the truth is they're not crazy--they have goals. Understanding those goals (and, if they're contrary to those of the US, combating them) is important to reasonable policy. In this case, I'm not sure that it's unreasonable to just let them have the damned things and deal with them on equal footing as a nuclear power, albeit one that can't really blow anything up except as a suicide situation.
Sure, they could, but their chances of making that work are even lower. First of all, you can't shield these things so that they're undetectable--any Geiger counter within a reasonable range would pick up that much uranium. Also, it's not like the roads don't have checkpoints. Again, the likelihood of getting caught is way too high to risk the bomb-on-a-truck plan, even moreso than the bomb-on-a-boat plan. LR
It is my understanding that Iran would like to build a uranium nuclear device. While these are impressive--and definitely make a big boom--they are not nearly as deadly or frightening as a plutonium nuclear device. The reason? Deliverability. While a plutonium nuclear explosive can be squeezed down to a pretty small size (to fit on the tip of a cruise missile, for example), a uranium device has to be pretty massive.
Essentially, while a plutonium device is a ball of plutonium surrounded by concentric spheres of perfectly timed explosives, a uranium device is the equivalent of a 5-inch diameter gun which fires a uranium slug at a uranium target. The advantage of a plutonium device is obvious: it's small. The disadvantage of a plutonium device is the fact that it's very, very difficult to get the timing right so that you don't incinerate the plutonium before it goes critical. Meanwhile, a uranium device is dirt-simple to develop once you have the material. However, these things are huge. So huge, in fact, that you need something the size of a B29 in order to deliver it. We're talking several tons here.
Incidentally, the US developed one of each during the Manhattan Project, culminating in the two dropped bombs: Little Boy and Fat Man (no prizes for guessing which is which). While the Plutonium devices needed to be tested to make sure it worked, the scientists didn't even bother to test a uranium explosive at full scale. They just dropped the sucker.
Basically, this boils down to a pretty simple reality: even if Iran develops a uranium device, they can't deliver it. They can't put it on a missile, and I think it's a 100% certainty that Israel (or anyone else, for that matter, though Israel is the most likely target) would shoot down anything the size of a B29 flying in from Iran. If I had to guess, I'd wager that's why the Bush administration doesn't seem terribly worried about Iran. North Korea is a different matter, but Iran just isn't as big of a threat as everyone seems to be making it out to be.
And as an aside, it's certainly tempting to say "well, they could just put it on a boat and hide it and float it to a port and explode it." However, there are a couple of problems. First of all, each nuclear device that Iran develops will be a sort of force-multiplier for its power in the region. So if it develops--say--three devices, that means that losing just one is going to be a dramatic blow to its power. If you say that there's a 50/50 chance that the device will actually make it to its target, there's just no way to rationalize that risk. Much better to use the threat as leverage. The Iranian leaders don't subscribe to Western modes of thought, but they're aren't utterly irrational.
LR
I'm not entirely sure what science fiction the submitter has been reading, but to say that "most" science fiction is written by people who don't know what they're talking about isn't necessarily true. Gregory Benford, Greg Bear, Stephen Baxter, Charles Sheffield (and a whole host of others) have physics and astronomy backgrounds (PhDs). Other authors, such as Peter F. Hamilton, write SF that's got very good, very realistic science behind it... FTL travel and all.
Additionally, the statement that Einstein's rules can't be broken is probably true--but they can certainly be circumvented. Wormholes are one possibility--exotic matter and a few other advancements could make them quite possible. Another possibility is that there are alternate "universes" in the multiverse for whom the rules of distance is different. Use a wormhole to pop into one of those, travel, and pop back in, and you have FTL travel. Those are just a couple of possibilities, and they may or may not work. But the job of the SF writer is not to PROVE that their ideas will become reality. They just have to write it so that it can't be dispoven or dismissed.
Point being, to be good, thought-provoking science fiction, the author doesn't have to detail every step involved in making a particular aspect reality--it's just reasonable guessing, all the way along, as is every other part of science fiction. The point is to make one think about the possibilities, avoiding some and trying to work toward others. I wouldn't call that an "opiate."
As I recall, there was an issue (last year?) of Scientific American that had a contraption similar to this in discussion, but it was in the lab of an extremely well-respected scientist. I can't remember the name or any specifics, but from what I remember, it doesn't have anything to do with gravity at all. Actually, it works on the electromagnetic (I think...sounds close to right) properties of matter to actually _repel_ objects. There were some calculations about the size of a spinning disk of superconducting material and power requirements. Sounds awfully like the story. Again, this doesn't violate any laws of physics because the energy put into the system is greater than the energy required to "push" the object up. In short, it can negate gravity in about the same way that a rocket negates gravity. Just a little more convenient and probably more efficient. Don't be shocked if it works...but it's not "revolutionary" either. Anyone want to help on the SciAm article? I can't remember details for the life of me...
Maybe Intel gave a lot of you the bird personally, and if they did, I'm sorry, but as to the rest of the anti-intel crowd...
/Begin Rant
I'm sorry, but people time and time again keep naming the big price difference as a reason to buy AMD.
Here are a few facts to ponder: the 2.0A Northwood will be priced at around $360. The 2000+ Athlon will be priced at around $330. Yes, that's a huge price difference there. "Oh, but the (dirty) RAMBUS" you say. The price of a 256 meg stick of Corsair "Value Select" PC2100 DDR-DRAM PC2100 from www.memman.com is $98. The price of a 256 meg stick of Corsair "Value Select" 800mhz RDRAM is *gasp* $108. Assuming you want to outfit a rig with 512 megs of ram, that is a grand total of a $50 price difference. Maybe I'm just a little too loose with money, but on a $700+ purchase, I don't think $50 will make the ultimate decision. And I haven't even bothered to mention the fact that P4s can now use DDR...so what's the problem with price, again?
There seems to be a hatred of the P4 among some people. I really don't understand it. Yes, Intel made a tradeoff between per-clock power and ghz...but if they can make up for the difference with higher clock speed, so what? As I understand it, it's like the difference between buying a fast car that can't haul a lot of stuff and buying a van that can haul lots of stuff. Just so long as the fast car is able to go fast enough so it can make a few more trips (and thus transport the same amount) then it doesn't matter _how_ it got done. Also, continuing with the analogy, it seems the fast little car can go about 25% faster than its rated speed. According to most reviews, these overclock like a dream.
People who are against a product simply because it has the name "Intel" stamped on it are no better that IT departments that refuse to buy anything _not_ stamped with the Intel logo.
As is the mantra of capitalism, competition is good. However, for there to be competition, people can't just blindly stick to one brand. I'm not saying that the Northwoods are good enough to make someone switch, but they at least deserve a chance.
/End Rant.
Sorry all. I think it just needed to be said.