Even if someone were able to take out all 13 "master" locations, the basic root server information (well, in the event of such a catastrophe you would be fine with information a few days old) is probably stored in hundreds of spots at the big ISPS. So no, the internet isn't vulnerable to physical attack.
Smart viruses, generated by either EXTREMELY (i.e. godlike) hackers or some sort of artificial intelligence are one way it could be brought down.
What do you mean, the light is just being "stored" and retransmitted. It IS stopped. The energy that makes the light is STILL THERE, stored in the atoms energy states. When you stimulate it with another beam, that releases the same energy. Also, you CANNOT make copies of quantum states, thus by definition when you "start" up the light again you are getting the ORIGINAL started up again.
As for potential uses, true quantum computers could do far more than merely let FBI thugs read your encryped email and discover you've been downloading copyrighted porn(which they knew anyway...with no job and no girlfriend, its not hard to work out)
No, "buildable" quantum computers (and no, this does NOT mean desktops. The nature of the components required I suspect will lead to most quantum computers being extremely expensive and run by a select few. Might be some kind of timesharing scheme. Remember, to store these quantum states you have to keep the parts EXTREMELY cold to minimize thermal noise from interfering. No private individual will be able to own their own liquid helium and laser cooling system unless they are very wealthy, just like private individuals cannot own spacecraft without extreme wealth)
Anyway, buildable quantum computers could finally allow for true artificial intelligence, which I believe will change the world beyond all recognition. Read The Singularity, and consider the implications of an AI being able to learn and expand at exponential rates, no longer limited by what we humans are held by.
(1) Crewmember on spacecraft says to FriendlyHal the AI "build me a Dyson sphere around that star over there yonder". (2) FriendlyHal 9000 version. 2.0 (verson 1.0 had a small problem...) sends out a small, self contained machine (small I mean a few thousand tons). This machine goes to the nearest source of usable mass, an asteroid around the target system, and starts converting that mass into building a second one of these machines. (3) these 2 machines start building more copies of themselves, and so on...
In a VERY short period of time (10 years? 20?) (exponential growth) there are billions of these machines. Like bacteria in a sucrose solution, the raw materials and energy for these machines are very abundant around a star system. At some point whatever planets are here are being torn apart to make more machines. Finally, this vast array builds the Dysonsphere in a few months.
Well, in your analogy the equivalent would be : I make this burger, and it costs $50 to make. I charge $225 for it, but there are other items on the menu I make every day in my posh restraunt that I lose a LOT of money on. So I have to charge the 225 to make a reasonable profit.
But, I can't charge people all at once for this 225 hamburger. Its too expensive to get the average joe to eat it. So I charge $125, and get the rest later. (i.e. the movie goes to DVD)
Premise one : it is Work to create content, whether it be music, video, the printed word, or computer code. What do I mean by Work? Well, first it requires a portion of the content creator's lifespan to create content. It can be anywhere from 6 months of a book author's life to hundreds of manyears of time to create a major movie. Obviously, the people doing the creating must meet their needs during this time, and more skilled (or at least more popular) content creators must receive proportionally more compensation for their labors. (hence popular content receives more compensation)
Premise Two : If someone is allowed to enjoy such created content, whatever to media, without paying for it they decrease the incentive the creators of such content have to produce it. If so few people pay for it in some manner that it is more effort to create content than the creators are compensated (measured in subjective terms, of course) then the creator of the content will likely move on to a more productive form of employment. Hence, noone makes a sequel to a movie that fails economically, and when the.coms run out of money they stop producing anything.
Premise 3 : The digital age allows one to make absolutely perfect copies of content, for almost any form. Many people find they can get content for free with perfect quality. The same incentive rule applies : if you can get media for free, why pay for it? Thus, Something Must Be Done. Especially the major media creators who risk billions in making motion pictures (which is why the MPAA is the most strict about copy protection : a movie takes hundreds of times the money and effort as most other forms of content creation).
I have not seen any proposals made by/.ers that will work. In reality, it will take very draconian measures for the content creators to ensure they receive fair compensation for their efforts.
One last thing to note : some of you will allege that content creators do not in fact receive "fair" compensation...that they make obscene amounts of money compared to the cost of producing the media. That is simply false. First, in the case of music the $15 you pay for the cd goes to the ADVERTISING, which is just as big a part of the content you pay for as the music itself. The advertising makes you "feel good" about listening to the music, even if the music actually sucks. (hence the popularity of Miss Spears. Remember, advertising refers to more subtle forms of expression than mere T.V. commercials). For the movie example, much of the profit studios make on successful movies has to go to pay for the films that flop.
That would be the "main effect" of a nuclear bomb. Well, main purpose of one if you want to quibble over semantics.
Besides, death and destruction can be recovered from relatively quickly after it empties out parts of the world, but permanent poisoning preventing biological organisms from living properly cannot.
First, heat is NOT the same as temperature. (grabs a physic textbook)
Temperature = mass/(3k)(v^2), where v is the average root mean squared velocity of the gas
Internal energy = 3/2nRT, with n in moles, R a constant, and T in Kelvin
Finally, HEAT actually refers to the TRANSFER of energy, it is NOT a state variable : that is, a system can "have" a temperature but it CANNOT have "heat". A system CAN have an internal energy state, and as you TRANSFER energy via heat, the internal energy changes via:
Internal energy = Heat - Work, with work referring to work done ON the surroundings by the system.
So there.
What purpose do the steel wires serve? They could be used to generate the heat directly, merely by passing current directly through the skinny woven wires. That sounds like the method that would spread the heat the most evenly. However, its also possible that they are merely being used as conductors to transfer the heat from heating elements located near the battery pack.
I saw one MAJOR flaw in the jacket : the battery is located outside the garmet. Since most batteries have a significant internal resistance and are inherently inefficient, that means a considerable amount of the heat energy produced is being wasted. The battery pack should be located inside the jacket to improve its performance and to reclaim the waste heat.
The big problem with this idea is that the power density in J/kg of lithium batteries is terrible compared to more dense fuels such as butane or gasoline. A more effective system could work by actually burning a fuel inside a tiny, protected combustion chamber designed to shield the wearer from the open flame and prevent the flame from going on.
Actually, the source I read put it that way. As for why I try to make my points sound clear, coherent, and informed : I'm trying to get karma, and sometimes I don't have anything really clever to say but want the mod points:).
One word (plus some extra padding to avoid the !@#@ "lameness filter) : Liability.
As of yet, virtual actors don't ask for workman's comp when they get hurt because your shoved them down the stairs. At least not yet...
I was assuming a 12 ounce bottle, which is about the size of a coke can. I guess I just wasn't thirsty enough. So my calculations were correct, since 12 ounces is ~.34 kilograms according to my trusty TI-85 conversion utility.
That's a good thing. I think many people LIKE realism, i.e. CounterStrike. Imagine a game much along the same vein with this sort of physics. OTOH, in cs its more about guns guns guns, improved physics would only make the death animations more interesting; While in a fighting game it could significantly improve the gameply.
Oh, and realistic "body physics" from scantily clad female fighters. That would sell more copies than anything. (especially if there were an unofficial "porno patch") Gotta love the power of smut.
Well, the trouble with using it to replace stuntmen has as much to do with the realism of actual footage of an event vs a cgi simulation of one.
That is, there are many other factors that cgi imagery comes no where close to mimicking, so even if tommorow this software let you create completely realistic human animation, it wouldn't put the union out of business yet.
Many of the more spectacular stunts in our favorite action movies...such as the ones in crouching tiger...used the computer simply to composite the scene elements (like replacing the ropes from the flying harnesses), rather than recreate the scene. Or that train crash in Die Hard 3. The computer is often used to combine several "real" footages (like combining the actors on one set and the dangerous stuff on another) rather than do a whole scene, anyway.
However, games could be great with this tech. I have always wanted to see a realistic fighting game, one with actual full physics animation, medical grade damage modeling (and when someone is hurt, realistic degradation of their performance), and the completely unscripted movements that an animation engine like this would allow.
For instance, if someone punched your on screen avatar in the gut, your character would first stagger with the blow, and then shake back and forth as he tries to catch his breath. If you hit one of the attack commands at that moment, the subsequent attack animation would be modified by him still recovering from the blow, as WELL as what the other player was doing. A compltely freeform system. Yes, I know its possible to fake some of this now but there are some obvious limits. For instance, no matter how hard or how light your avatar got punched, he will probably still stagger with the same animation.
And of course the "beowolf cluster" of all these technologies : a massively multiplayer online game where you can run around fighting other avatars like above, as well as casting spells, killing monsters, leveling, looting, camping, kill stealing... All the rest of the good things we come to expect from games of this type
The containment equipment would be small enough to fit inside an individual bullet. The explosion would be big enough to likely destroy the robot that fired the shot, that's why each robot only has 1 bullet. (and also, to prevent the chain reaction like you mentioned)
Since the mass of the antiparticles would be extremely small, and the magnetic flux extremely concentrated, it wouldn't actually have to be that powerful a bottle.
Incorrect, 99% efficiency is possible. (well, technically half of that creates matter, which isn't too useful) You CAN choose what the reaction products are going to be in the mentioned laser example..you WILL get a chunk of matter and a chunk of antimatter, and energy level determines what form it will take.
True that, most of the storage schemes would require a hefty amount of additional equipment.
Theorizing with non-existent technolgy, one might be able to create antimatter versions of say, iron, and keep it suspended inside a simple vacuum chamber surrounded by magnetic coils. Or some other solid material, relying on electrostatic force to keep it from touching the outsides.
This chamber could be very, very small, fitting in a metal slug and powered by a batery for an actual weapon. A small robot would carry a single one of these (the robot might be smaller than a bird) and be able to destroy any single target up to a certain size. By varying the amount of antimatter in the bullet, this robot hunter could have as much firepower as an entire army yet be able to sneak around in a theoretical futuristic battlefield.
By this point, of course, it is rather unlikely that humans would be fast enough or tough enough to do anything but spectate in wars of this nature (like spectating using remote sensors while they hide underground and wait for the outcome of the war)
A water bottle full of anti water (assuming the bottle had an outer shell of normal matter, with perhaps magnetic coils or something to keep an inner cylinder of antimatter containing the matter), when drunk (actually you'd never taste it or see anything after you opened the lid) would release about 6 megatons of energy, enough to obliterate your whole city.
First, the method they are using to create the antiparticles is rather inefficient...I believe the proportion of energy expended vs energy stored in antiparticles is something on the order of 10^4.
A far more efficient method involves concentrating an intense pulse of light into a small enough space, to the point that the energy actually becomes matter. This has been demonstrated.
With efficient free electron lasers, it may be possible to mass produce antimatter on a large scale in this manner, making possible a greater number of experiments, as well as allowing manned interplanetary expeditions (and in theory interstellar).
Antimatter would make an excellent weapon in addition, since one would have the equivalent of a nuke that could be used on very small scales. You could in theory use it to make, say, antitank bullets that could be fired from a handheld gun. No heavy isotope decay products would be left to contaminate the battlefield, thus avoiding the nastiest side effect of nuclear bombs.
The big problem with antimatter annihilation, however, is that the energy released comes out in the form of high energy gamma rays. While the energy is there, it is difficult to harness in a practical device, and in the weapon example the gamma rays might irradiate everyone on the battlefield including the wielder of the weapon while doing little actual damage to the tank.
Finally, doing large scale chemistry experiments using antimatter versions of the elements could be rather dangerous...you'd probably need a kilo or more of the stuff, which would have rather catastrohpic results if it were allowed to interact with normal matter.
Wouldn't multiple mirror satellites solve this problem? (or one big satellite with multiple independent arrays). The principle is that the energy to destroy the target would be divied up between independent mirror arrays all focusing on the same target.
Whatever you come up with, I think all of us here will agree that in general, a technological idea just flat out sucks in its first implementation. Whether its some web game, or a nifty pda, or some puzzle the children are expected to solve that gives even adults trouble...it isn't going to change the world unless you do the test/fix cycle a few times before you try to go for a large scale. Otherwise, its doubtful the system will even work at all when all those thousands log on, much less work as intended. You ought to have some method of actually trying a few good ideas before you jump off into developement land.
Think TEST. Think INCREMENTAL improvement. And most of all, DON'T set impossible expectations.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if someone were able to take out all 13 "master" locations, the basic root server information (well, in the event of such a catastrophe you would be fine with information a few days old) is probably stored in hundreds of spots at the big ISPS. So no, the internet isn't vulnerable to physical attack. Smart viruses, generated by either EXTREMELY (i.e. godlike) hackers or some sort of artificial intelligence are one way it could be brought down.
What do you mean, the light is just being "stored" and retransmitted. It IS stopped. The energy that makes the light is STILL THERE, stored in the atoms energy states. When you stimulate it with another beam, that releases the same energy. Also, you CANNOT make copies of quantum states, thus by definition when you "start" up the light again you are getting the ORIGINAL started up again.
As for potential uses, true quantum computers could do far more than merely let FBI thugs read your encryped email and discover you've been downloading copyrighted porn(which they knew anyway...with no job and no girlfriend, its not hard to work out)
No, "buildable" quantum computers (and no, this does NOT mean desktops. The nature of the components required I suspect will lead to most quantum computers being extremely expensive and run by a select few. Might be some kind of timesharing scheme. Remember, to store these quantum states you have to keep the parts EXTREMELY cold to minimize thermal noise from interfering. No private individual will be able to own their own liquid helium and laser cooling system unless they are very wealthy, just like private individuals cannot own spacecraft without extreme wealth)
Anyway, buildable quantum computers could finally allow for true artificial intelligence, which I believe will change the world beyond all recognition. Read The Singularity, and consider the implications of an AI being able to learn and expand at exponential rates, no longer limited by what we humans are held by.
It wouldn't take very long. Three easy steps.
(1) Crewmember on spacecraft says to FriendlyHal the AI "build me a Dyson sphere around that star over there yonder".
(2) FriendlyHal 9000 version. 2.0 (verson 1.0 had a small problem...) sends out a small, self contained machine (small I mean a few thousand tons). This machine goes to the nearest source of usable mass, an asteroid around the target system, and starts converting that mass into building a second one of these machines.
(3) these 2 machines start building more copies of themselves, and so on...
In a VERY short period of time (10 years? 20?) (exponential growth) there are billions of these machines. Like bacteria in a sucrose solution, the raw materials and energy for these machines are very abundant around a star system. At some point whatever planets are here are being torn apart to make more machines. Finally, this vast array builds the Dysonsphere in a few months.
Actually, there is a way. Take an individual who you KNOW has certain traits, and clone em.
Well, in your analogy the equivalent would be : I make this burger, and it costs $50 to make. I charge $225 for it, but there are other items on the menu I make every day in my posh restraunt that I lose a LOT of money on. So I have to charge the 225 to make a reasonable profit. But, I can't charge people all at once for this 225 hamburger. Its too expensive to get the average joe to eat it. So I charge $125, and get the rest later. (i.e. the movie goes to DVD)
Premise one : it is Work to create content, whether it be music, video, the printed word, or computer code. What do I mean by Work? Well, first it requires a portion of the content creator's lifespan to create content. It can be anywhere from 6 months of a book author's life to hundreds of manyears of time to create a major movie. Obviously, the people doing the creating must meet their needs during this time, and more skilled (or at least more popular) content creators must receive proportionally more compensation for their labors. (hence popular content receives more compensation)
.coms run out of money they stop producing anything.
/.ers that will work. In reality, it will take very draconian measures for the content creators to ensure they receive fair compensation for their efforts.
Premise Two : If someone is allowed to enjoy such created content, whatever to media, without paying for it they decrease the incentive the creators of such content have to produce it. If so few people pay for it in some manner that it is more effort to create content than the creators are compensated (measured in subjective terms, of course) then the creator of the content will likely move on to a more productive form of employment. Hence, noone makes a sequel to a movie that fails economically, and when the
Premise 3 : The digital age allows one to make absolutely perfect copies of content, for almost any form. Many people find they can get content for free with perfect quality. The same incentive rule applies : if you can get media for free, why pay for it? Thus, Something Must Be Done. Especially the major media creators who risk billions in making motion pictures (which is why the MPAA is the most strict about copy protection : a movie takes hundreds of times the money and effort as most other forms of content creation).
I have not seen any proposals made by
One last thing to note : some of you will allege that content creators do not in fact receive "fair" compensation...that they make obscene amounts of money compared to the cost of producing the media. That is simply false. First, in the case of music the $15 you pay for the cd goes to the ADVERTISING, which is just as big a part of the content you pay for as the music itself. The advertising makes you "feel good" about listening to the music, even if the music actually sucks. (hence the popularity of Miss Spears. Remember, advertising refers to more subtle forms of expression than mere T.V. commercials). For the movie example, much of the profit studios make on successful movies has to go to pay for the films that flop.
That would be the "main effect" of a nuclear bomb. Well, main purpose of one if you want to quibble over semantics. Besides, death and destruction can be recovered from relatively quickly after it empties out parts of the world, but permanent poisoning preventing biological organisms from living properly cannot.
First, heat is NOT the same as temperature. (grabs a physic textbook)
:
Temperature = mass/(3k)(v^2), where v is the average root mean squared velocity of the gas
Internal energy = 3/2nRT, with n in moles, R a constant, and T in Kelvin
Finally, HEAT actually refers to the TRANSFER of energy, it is NOT a state variable : that is, a system can "have" a temperature but it CANNOT have "heat". A system CAN have an internal energy state, and as you TRANSFER energy via heat, the internal energy changes via
Internal energy = Heat - Work, with work referring to work done ON the surroundings by the system.
So there.
What purpose do the steel wires serve? They could be used to generate the heat directly, merely by passing current directly through the skinny woven wires. That sounds like the method that would spread the heat the most evenly. However, its also possible that they are merely being used as conductors to transfer the heat from heating elements located near the battery pack.
I saw one MAJOR flaw in the jacket : the battery is located outside the garmet. Since most batteries have a significant internal resistance and are inherently inefficient, that means a considerable amount of the heat energy produced is being wasted. The battery pack should be located inside the jacket to improve its performance and to reclaim the waste heat.
The big problem with this idea is that the power density in J/kg of lithium batteries is terrible compared to more dense fuels such as butane or gasoline. A more effective system could work by actually burning a fuel inside a tiny, protected combustion chamber designed to shield the wearer from the open flame and prevent the flame from going on.
Actually, the source I read put it that way. As for why I try to make my points sound clear, coherent, and informed : I'm trying to get karma, and sometimes I don't have anything really clever to say but want the mod points :).
One word (plus some extra padding to avoid the !@#@ "lameness filter) : Liability. As of yet, virtual actors don't ask for workman's comp when they get hurt because your shoved them down the stairs. At least not yet...
I was assuming a 12 ounce bottle, which is about the size of a coke can. I guess I just wasn't thirsty enough. So my calculations were correct, since 12 ounces is ~.34 kilograms according to my trusty TI-85 conversion utility.
That's a good thing. I think many people LIKE realism, i.e. CounterStrike. Imagine a game much along the same vein with this sort of physics. OTOH, in cs its more about guns guns guns, improved physics would only make the death animations more interesting; While in a fighting game it could significantly improve the gameply.
Oh, and realistic "body physics" from scantily clad female fighters. That would sell more copies than anything. (especially if there were an unofficial "porno patch") Gotta love the power of smut.
Well, the trouble with using it to replace stuntmen has as much to do with the realism of actual footage of an event vs a cgi simulation of one.
That is, there are many other factors that cgi imagery comes no where close to mimicking, so even if tommorow this software let you create completely realistic human animation, it wouldn't put the union out of business yet.
Many of the more spectacular stunts in our favorite action movies...such as the ones in crouching tiger...used the computer simply to composite the scene elements (like replacing the ropes from the flying harnesses), rather than recreate the scene. Or that train crash in Die Hard 3. The computer is often used to combine several "real" footages (like combining the actors on one set and the dangerous stuff on another) rather than do a whole scene, anyway.
However, games could be great with this tech. I have always wanted to see a realistic fighting game, one with actual full physics animation, medical grade damage modeling (and when someone is hurt, realistic degradation of their performance), and the completely unscripted movements that an animation engine like this would allow.
For instance, if someone punched your on screen avatar in the gut, your character would first stagger with the blow, and then shake back and forth as he tries to catch his breath. If you hit one of the attack commands at that moment, the subsequent attack animation would be modified by him still recovering from the blow, as WELL as what the other player was doing. A compltely freeform system. Yes, I know its possible to fake some of this now but there are some obvious limits. For instance, no matter how hard or how light your avatar got punched, he will probably still stagger with the same animation.
And of course the "beowolf cluster" of all these technologies : a massively multiplayer online game where you can run around fighting other avatars like above, as well as casting spells, killing monsters, leveling, looting, camping, kill stealing... All the rest of the good things we come to expect from games of this type
High Definition Victoria's Secret commercials? Where oh where do I sign up?
Actually, no, but the hydrogen was blamed for the disaster.
The containment equipment would be small enough to fit inside an individual bullet. The explosion would be big enough to likely destroy the robot that fired the shot, that's why each robot only has 1 bullet. (and also, to prevent the chain reaction like you mentioned) Since the mass of the antiparticles would be extremely small, and the magnetic flux extremely concentrated, it wouldn't actually have to be that powerful a bottle.
Incorrect, 99% efficiency is possible. (well, technically half of that creates matter, which isn't too useful) You CAN choose what the reaction products are going to be in the mentioned laser example..you WILL get a chunk of matter and a chunk of antimatter, and energy level determines what form it will take.
To avoid the annoying "registration required", use the username : slashcode0 and password slashcode0 Have a nice day
True that, most of the storage schemes would require a hefty amount of additional equipment. Theorizing with non-existent technolgy, one might be able to create antimatter versions of say, iron, and keep it suspended inside a simple vacuum chamber surrounded by magnetic coils. Or some other solid material, relying on electrostatic force to keep it from touching the outsides. This chamber could be very, very small, fitting in a metal slug and powered by a batery for an actual weapon. A small robot would carry a single one of these (the robot might be smaller than a bird) and be able to destroy any single target up to a certain size. By varying the amount of antimatter in the bullet, this robot hunter could have as much firepower as an entire army yet be able to sneak around in a theoretical futuristic battlefield. By this point, of course, it is rather unlikely that humans would be fast enough or tough enough to do anything but spectate in wars of this nature (like spectating using remote sensors while they hide underground and wait for the outcome of the war)
A water bottle full of anti water (assuming the bottle had an outer shell of normal matter, with perhaps magnetic coils or something to keep an inner cylinder of antimatter containing the matter), when drunk (actually you'd never taste it or see anything after you opened the lid) would release about 6 megatons of energy, enough to obliterate your whole city.
First, the method they are using to create the antiparticles is rather inefficient...I believe the proportion of energy expended vs energy stored in antiparticles is something on the order of 10^4.
A far more efficient method involves concentrating an intense pulse of light into a small enough space, to the point that the energy actually becomes matter. This has been demonstrated.
With efficient free electron lasers, it may be possible to mass produce antimatter on a large scale in this manner, making possible a greater number of experiments, as well as allowing manned interplanetary expeditions (and in theory interstellar).
Antimatter would make an excellent weapon in addition, since one would have the equivalent of a nuke that could be used on very small scales. You could in theory use it to make, say, antitank bullets that could be fired from a handheld gun. No heavy isotope decay products would be left to contaminate the battlefield, thus avoiding the nastiest side effect of nuclear bombs.
The big problem with antimatter annihilation, however, is that the energy released comes out in the form of high energy gamma rays. While the energy is there, it is difficult to harness in a practical device, and in the weapon example the gamma rays might irradiate everyone on the battlefield including the wielder of the weapon while doing little actual damage to the tank.
Finally, doing large scale chemistry experiments using antimatter versions of the elements could be rather dangerous...you'd probably need a kilo or more of the stuff, which would have rather catastrohpic results if it were allowed to interact with normal matter.
Wouldn't multiple mirror satellites solve this problem? (or one big satellite with multiple independent arrays). The principle is that the energy to destroy the target would be divied up between independent mirror arrays all focusing on the same target.
Whatever you come up with, I think all of us here will agree that in general, a technological idea just flat out sucks in its first implementation. Whether its some web game, or a nifty pda, or some puzzle the children are expected to solve that gives even adults trouble...it isn't going to change the world unless you do the test/fix cycle a few times before you try to go for a large scale. Otherwise, its doubtful the system will even work at all when all those thousands log on, much less work as intended. You ought to have some method of actually trying a few good ideas before you jump off into developement land.
Think TEST. Think INCREMENTAL improvement. And most of all, DON'T set impossible expectations.