That is not possible. I can see it in the court case. You had tge capacity to choose, yet you chose not to choose and my daughter is dead.
But, the simple reality it, that will happen anyway, no matter what decision is made. ("You chose to minimize the probability of X, and now my daughter is dead.")
I don't, by the way, buy the "Programmers have all the time in the world to get it right" bit. Programmers will not be able to anticipate everything, and their software will not always be able to calculate everything in the few milliseconds or so you might have to make such decisions.
The first part is irrelevant, as he asked the limit for "a cavity" (i.e., inside a specific sized object), and not on the target, but the second is not. You can, in fact, make your laser from a bomb and evade such limits. This was basically Edward Tellers idea for gamma ray lasers for anti-missile defense.
As a certain energy density, the radiation pressure from the photons will be stronger than the tensile strength of the optical cavity, and the laser will blow apart. In astronomy, a similar limit is called the Eddington limit, so this is really the Eddington limit for a laser.
The radiation pressure is (ignoring all factors of 2 or cos(incidence)) E / c. A tensile limit, T, of 500 mega pascals (reasonable for steel) thus would imply an energy intensity of c T, or 1.5 x 10^17 Watts/m^2. If the total cavity had an area of 1 m^2, then that's ~ 10^17 Watts.
Note that it is common in pulsed lasers to have a lot of energy in a very short pulse (so the actual power during the pulse is very high). If your pulses were a microsecond in length, then the Eddington limit per pulse would be about 10^11 Joules, equivalent to 24 tons of TNT.
Many rules are ignored / not enforced in disaster areas. This can go both ways - for example, your freedom of movement may be blocked by police enforcing evacuations, but the people looking for survivors generally don't worry much about one way streets or the laws of trespass. (And, yes, this certainly includes commercial activities, such as insurance adjusters.)
My guess is that the FAA will ignore this, as long as it doesn't cause problems or get egregious.
With apologies to various political hacks in the judiciary, corporations are not people, and this is one of many examples why, If I had a house in Ireland, and the US wanted something in it, they couldn't do much about it legally without going through the proper legal channels (e.g., applying to an Irish judge), especially if I was also residing in Ireland. Companies reside in the countries they do business in, which means they are located anywhere and everywhere, and subject to the laws of all of those countries, especially the nation that they are incorporated in.
So, this is not surprising at all. I bet, too, that if Microsoft had some paper documentation relevant to this case , and those papers were in Ireland, the judge could order Microsoft to turn that over too.
"Politics" in this case means that they haven't convinced the government that this money needs to be spent on them. Given that in these cases the government tends to have a bias towards spending money, I would regard that as telling.
The biggest user of water in Portland is also the largest financial backer of a May ballot measure to strip utility rate-setting responsibility from the Portland City Council.
It's an open reservoir. Birds use it. That is true of the vast majority of terrestrial water supplies, at some point in their use cycle. (Water in Fairfax County, Virginia, for example, comes from the Occoquan River.) What more do you need to say?
beliefs, you say? I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu.. L Ron Hubbard made it all up to bilk money out of desparate people, and plenty of other folk are happy to continue the premise and keep the money flowing.. but does anybody actually believe it? I doubt it..
I don't think you understand how bilking "money out of desparate people" works.
When did Slashdot become infested with NSA apologists?
Putin does this show annually. I am sure that the callers are vetted, but the questions tend to be wide-ranging, and don't really seem scripted to me. (I liked the one about buying Alaska back.) After all, it's a 4 hour show.
Now, as for Snowden, I see this as positive. State security is not talked about that much in Russia, and he brought it up. While Putin said pretty much what Obama might have said in 2010 (in other words, it's fair to doubt whether he was being truthful), it gets it out in the open, and all in all I think that is a good thing.
Saturn's ring material falling onto the Iapetus. This "mountain range" is technically an equatorial ridge, but as anyone who's seen an hour glass it's not hard to imagine (-- disclaimer) the same thing is happening on the moon of a planet with it's own ring system.
No. In that theory, the satellites interior to Iapetus, i.e., Mimas, Enceladas,Tethys, Dione, Rhea and (maybe) Titan would all have similar equatorial ridges, which they do not.
Russia has no plans to annex the Moon. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty makes this legally impossible, and common sense shows that it could never (or, at least, not for a good long while) be enforced.
This is true of any parent who has ever emigrated anywhere (i.e., basically everyone's ancestors).
SInce the same is also true of any parent who didn't emigrate but stayed put (everyone else's ancestors), I myself don't see this as a real moral Dilemma
I am a man. I am a volunteer to go on such a mission, as part of the first generation. I will necessarily have to breed, in order to do my part for overall mission success. Does this mean I may have to fuck a woman I find ugly, dumb, boring, vulgar or otherwise unattractive ?
General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
Slashdot Mirror
That is not possible. I can see it in the court case. You had tge capacity to choose, yet you chose not to choose and my daughter is dead.
But, the simple reality it, that will happen anyway, no matter what decision is made. ("You chose to minimize the probability of X, and now my daughter is dead.")
I don't, by the way, buy the "Programmers have all the time in the world to get it right" bit. Programmers will not be able to anticipate everything, and their software will not always be able to calculate everything in the few milliseconds or so you might have to make such decisions.
The first part is irrelevant, as he asked the limit for "a cavity" (i.e., inside a specific sized object), and not on the target, but the second is not. You can, in fact, make your laser from a bomb and evade such limits. This was basically Edward Tellers idea for gamma ray lasers for anti-missile defense.
Then why do they have guys with guns guarding banks and jewelry stores?
As a certain energy density, the radiation pressure from the photons will be stronger than the tensile strength of the optical cavity, and the laser will blow apart. In astronomy, a similar limit is called the Eddington limit, so this is really the Eddington limit for a laser.
The radiation pressure is (ignoring all factors of 2 or cos(incidence)) E / c. A tensile limit, T, of 500 mega pascals (reasonable for steel) thus would imply an energy intensity of c T, or 1.5 x 10^17 Watts/m^2. If the total cavity had an area of 1 m^2, then that's ~ 10^17 Watts.
Note that it is common in pulsed lasers to have a lot of energy in a very short pulse (so the actual power during the pulse is very high). If your pulses were a microsecond in length, then the Eddington limit per pulse would be about 10^11 Joules, equivalent to 24 tons of TNT.
Many rules are ignored / not enforced in disaster areas. This can go both ways - for example, your freedom of movement may be blocked by police enforcing evacuations, but the people looking for survivors generally don't worry much about one way streets or the laws of trespass. (And, yes, this certainly includes commercial activities, such as insurance adjusters.)
My guess is that the FAA will ignore this, as long as it doesn't cause problems or get egregious.
With apologies to various political hacks in the judiciary, corporations are not people, and this is one of many examples why, If I had a house in Ireland, and the US wanted something in it, they couldn't do much about it legally without going through the proper legal channels (e.g., applying to an Irish judge), especially if I was also residing in Ireland. Companies reside in the countries they do business in, which means they are located anywhere and everywhere, and subject to the laws of all of those countries, especially the nation that they are incorporated in.
So, this is not surprising at all. I bet, too, that if Microsoft had some paper documentation relevant to this case , and those papers were in Ireland, the judge could order Microsoft to turn that over too.
"Politics" in this case means that they haven't convinced the government that this money needs to be spent on them. Given that in these cases the government tends to have a bias towards spending money, I would regard that as telling.
If people start exploding megaton class warheads 200 km above our soil, I would say that we have other things to worry about.
Or, to put it another way, that $ 2 billion is being spent, and it's being spent several times over, just not here.
Ah, astroturf. That makes things a lot clearer.
It's an open reservoir. Birds use it. That is true of the vast majority of terrestrial water supplies, at some point in their use cycle. (Water in Fairfax County, Virginia, for example, comes from the Occoquan River.) What more do you need to say?
beliefs, you say? I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu.. L Ron Hubbard made it all up to bilk money out of desparate people, and plenty of other folk are happy to continue the premise and keep the money flowing.. but does anybody actually believe it? I doubt it..
I don't think you understand how bilking "money out of desparate people" works.
Bad science fiction
I don't think he understands how security works.
When did Slashdot become infested with NSA apologists?
Putin does this show annually. I am sure that the callers are vetted, but the questions tend to be wide-ranging, and don't really seem scripted to me. (I liked the one about buying Alaska back.) After all, it's a 4 hour show.
Now, as for Snowden, I see this as positive. State security is not talked about that much in Russia, and he brought it up. While Putin said pretty much what Obama might have said in 2010 (in other words, it's fair to doubt whether he was being truthful), it gets it out in the open, and all in all I think that is a good thing.
The man this is supposed to be from is denying it, and also denying he ever claimed the title it gives him. See this, from Kiev Jewish.
Yeah, me too. It could be ambiguous, but you kinda have to work at it.
Saturn's ring material falling onto the Iapetus. This "mountain range" is technically an equatorial ridge, but as anyone who's seen an hour glass it's not hard to imagine (-- disclaimer) the same thing is happening on the moon of a planet with it's own ring system.
No. In that theory, the satellites interior to Iapetus, i.e., Mimas, Enceladas,Tethys, Dione, Rhea and (maybe) Titan would all have similar equatorial ridges, which they do not.
Just read the original paper.
(Yes, I know it was one of the links in the OP, but...)
You mean, like the asteroid 1999 KW4 ? I'd say that the source of the Iapetus ridge has been pretty obvious since the Science papers on that body.
Russia has no plans to annex the Moon. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty makes this legally impossible, and common sense shows that it could never (or, at least, not for a good long while) be enforced.
Does Michael Bloomberg know how to code? In fact, does he actually know how to do anything, or does he have people for that?
The basic equations for fluid dynamics are the Navier-Stokes equation.
So, I fully grok your argument, but I am wondering about one thing.
Is the Navier-Stokes equation REALLY the basic equation for fluid dynamics? .
No, of course not, there is a lower level of particle interactions. You can't really usefully compute them either.
This is true of any parent who has ever emigrated anywhere (i.e., basically everyone's ancestors).
SInce the same is also true of any parent who didn't emigrate but stayed put (everyone else's ancestors), I myself don't see this as a real moral Dilemma
I am a man. I am a volunteer to go on such a mission, as part of the first generation. I will necessarily have to breed, in order to do my part for overall mission success. Does this mean I may have to fuck a woman I find ugly, dumb, boring, vulgar or otherwise unattractive ?
General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
Didn't know inertia came into play in the empty vacuum of space.
No need to be a cock about it.
Yes, it does. The presence or absence of a vacuum has nothing to do with inertia.