"Gravitional acceration from the galaxies"
Assume you mean "accreation", how would accreation slow anything down to a measurable degree? And where are the galaxies picking up this extra mass? Pre "Big Bang" proto matter litter?
So, at the end of your first paragraph, you are saying, that the galaxies are NOT colliding head on, but are "glancing through each other", so to speak.
Galaxy self-canabilism, on the grandest scale, in the end, would cause another Big-Bang type singularity, correct?
I thought we had a rather detailed map of all of the galaxies in a 20 megaparsec sphere, including a lot of information regarding their velocity vectors and mass. Admittedly, acceleration vectors would take a tremendous amount of time gather.
>though I'm sure any local solar systems are
> majorly distributed.
Actually, I would disagree with you on that point. We don't feel any a affects of the tritary system only 4-5 light years away (the Centauri system). Ergo, calculate the odds of any star of, let's say, three times the sun's mass of the star coming within 5 light years of the Sun during a collision. Change the numbers to fit this equation:
Force of Gravity = product of masses * the gravitational constant / the distance squared
OR:
F = KmM/(d^2)
with:
F = force needed to affect the earth's orbit
M = mass of rogue star
m = mass of earth,
K = gravitational constant (what ever it is)
d = distance between the two
Assume the F to move the earth out of orbit by, say 0.1% is a constant (and average and scalar, for now), we would have
d^2 = (mK/F) * M
To make matters ease, we replace mK/F, all constants, with one constant, X.
d^2 = X*M
OR (d^2)/M = X
Now, with M = 3*our sun's mass, d = 5 light years, which is the minimum safe distance/mass ratio:
25/3*SunMass = X
So as long as the ratio between the distance of the rogue star and the rogue star mass is less or equal to 25 light years squared divided by three times the sun's mass, everything is okay (keep those units straight!).
It really won't matter, because the odds that any star would come close enough to our system to either A) directly hit anything, or B) even disturb the orbits of any planet with gravitional pulls, would be so remote that it would not be worth calculating.
As well, the "collision" would probably take several hundred thousand years, so defining a point of collision would be relatively pointless.
Lastly, if anything negative (IE: the Earth was going to be creamed by a slow moving star) was going to happen, we would have a simply goofy amount of time to do anything we could. On the flip side, there really isn't anything you can do to stop a star from doing whatever it wants to (stars are stubborn that way, something to do with the "inertia section" in their "Laws and Code of Honour For Stars" book). Aside from a *mass* migration (to, say, somewhere nearby, like the Greater Magellanic cloud), the human race would simply have to put their collective heads between their collective knees and kiss their collective asses goodbye. In about half a million years.
My question is this: how do galaxies collide? I mean, I thought that everything started at point A, there was this Big Bang thingy, and everything flew apart from the point A. If that was the case, it should be impossible that anything flung out of the explosion should be on an intersecting path with anything else from the explosion. Think of it this way: isn't it impossible for the light from the sun to "collide" with other sun light, because they start at the same point, and move outward and apart from each other. Why do the paths of galaxies cross?
The one question Katz/survey doesn't seem to concentrate on is whether other people feel neglected because their friends/relative use the Net. I mean, do the people around, say, me, feel neglected because of the time I spend on the web?
> Just because there has not been a lethal hack to date
There has, actually. Crackers/hackers/script kiddies/Al Gore/whoever took down a British weather station computer in the 1980s, causing the death of a sailor relying on the information to navigate in stormy weather.
Just curious, where did you pick up your vocabulary? I have to say that your usage of the word "pong" cracked me up; as is laughing with you, as opposed to laughing *at* you.
Yes, but each piece of hardware would still need a hardware address, and an address resolution protocol to link IP address to the hardware address.
Unless you can soft code an IP address to a piece of hardware without requiring the hardware to have a hardware address. But that leaves too many problems open (IE: reflashing your toaster and every other applicance every time you decide to move your furniture).
Offhand, I would say that the need for addresses is mainly limited to wireless - remember that all land based systems have hardware that have UNIQUE 48-bit MAC addresses, so it really is pretty stupid for IPv6 to go to a 128-bit base address unless you either revamp the MAC and ARP protocols simutaneously (which, since it is limited to a network segment, would not be *that* terribly hard, and *in theory*, could be done on a network-by-network basis) OR have a complete new and wonderful system (a la wireless) which can have a new, longer machine address/virtual address per machine.
Of course, that asks the serious question: how long *are* the machine addresses within wireless technology? Do they really *need* the 128-bit address length, or are we going to need to keep updating the ARP (or whatever follows ARP) protocols every X years? And how about that backwards compatibility issue? If MAC == 48-bit, then ARP; if MAC == X-bit, then ARPv6; if MAC == ad nauseum.
To me,/. is a place that I use primarily as a discussion site on current news. Despite the often low SNR (having it on Raw and Uncut because one of every 50 trolls is actually humorous), some of the comments are very interesting (like the comments on the possibility of flight on Titan in a recently posted article).
As well/. does help most real posters real as part of a community. It is less as a *news* paper, and more of a meeting place, where people can read an article, comment on it, and read the comments.
And besides, how many newspapers let you comment on the stories, and give you the chance to *moderate* the comments (arguements aside about the elegance of the moderating system), and even meta-moderate the moderations? Or how about kuroshin (sp?), which allows you to pick the stories they post? How many newspapers have that level of accountability?
Most newspapers have obvious political agendas that are unstated. At least the/. are honest about there slants - here we are, take it or leave it. That is *part* of/., why we come back to read it. To change those slants would remove most of the heart and soul of/.
As for the fact that/. is part of VA Linux machine, how does this change anything? I have noticed no serious differences in the news since I first started reading/. in May 1998 (except for the trolls, but they are the price to pay for success). I have not noticed a "boy, ain't VA great" slant. The people the frequent/. (except the trolls; I would like proof that they are people before calling them that) are generally smart enough to say, "Hey, this isn't the/. I started reading!" The niche/. fills is an ugly one for many companies to fill: catering to a minor of intelligent people who won't put about with garbage". It is easier for a company to mass produce garbage and appeal to the lowest common denominator of the masses (Microsoft, anyone?) than it is to appeal to the intelligent minority - besides the fact that the intelligent minority are just that - a minority.
And why should/. change? The formula that Cmdr Taco and the rest have used has made them (and, now, VA Linux) a good chunk of $$$ and a great site for most of us. Why change that?
I don't think you have to worry about sparks; you still need oxygen to ignite methane, and I have not read anything that indicates that Titan has a significant oxygen atmosphere.
I must say, Forge, that this is probably the most interesting comment in this whole discussion. It reminds me of what the humans believe the Overlords' world looks like in Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End"; since the Overlords are huge, but still have flight-worthy wings, that their home planet must have low gravity and a dense atmosphere.
You mean - "Saturn orbital objectily warm it" right? I mean, it's not like the rings on the planet on the heading illustration give it away, or nothing.
Er, "normal" accelleration? I am not sure I follow that. I will assume, from your "crushed when the ship" comment, that you believe "normal" accelleration (a) is when 0 < a < 10g; that is normal acceleration is between nothing and about 10 times Earth's gravity. This is a misconception; acceleration is simply the change of velocity over atime. Acceleration can be as high or as low as the force can be generated.
In Star Trek, the main reason the ship crew and officers don't become smears on the opposite wall is because ships are equipped with inertial dampers - devices that nullify the effects of extreme acceleration inside the ship (kind of impossible, by most Newtonian physics. See also - reactionless drive). Other sci-fi books assume that the warp bubble that the ship rides distorts the space around it, but doesn't warp the space inside it - the end effect being that since the stuff (crew) inside the bubble are not accelerating with respect to the space inside the bubble, they do not undergo any acceleration. Babylon 5 and Star Wars never exceeds 5g, and use hyperspace (with little acceleration) to transverse long distances. Joe Haldeman's "Forever War" uses statis chambers to hold the crew from rupture during hi-g manouvres.
As for the multi-dimensional sensor, it wouldn't be a problem. Most nuclear submarines have two-dimensional inertial trackers, which monitor accelerations forward-backward and starboard-port. The creation of a three-dimensional tracker is left as a exercise for the reader.
I agree with your interpretation of the captain's orders, and you see how few Americans would understand some of the complex ideas (such as "no coffee breaks" and "no cowboy stuff").
Measuring the movement of the ship relative to interstellar medium and dark matter.
Would say inertial tracking, but if acceleration is zero, than that wouldn't work. Inertial memory would be a close enough approximation, though (just have the computer remember the accelerations that the ship had gone through, vector sum them up, and calculate the needed counter-acceleration vector to neutralize).
What about some sort of galactic GPS system? Time beacons are used in Star Trek, so the idea of a grid of beacons would not be far-fetched (for the Star Trek/Wars worlds, of course). Just use Doppler measurements on the signals (this assumes that the beacons themselves are stationary, of course).
Of course, on the flip side, most of the time anyone asks for a complete stop is in orbit around something, so there is a point to declare the ship stationary to (whether it is a planet, an anomoly, another ship, a star, yada yada yada). I really can't remember any Star Wars/Trek episode where a complete stop was ordered in the middle of deep space.
As well, let's say that a complete stop is called in the middle of deep space. So what if the ship is moving a little bit? Rest assured, between our sun and Proxima Centauri, sixty miles an hour is rather insignificant; perhaps it would be called "pseudo-stationary". As well, as long as the ship wasn't accelerating, the velocity would not be a problem; you and the ship are moving the same velocity, you would think that the ship is stationary. Anything that would need a complete stop to do (repairs, investigation, commercial breaks, etc) could be done at a constant velocity just as easy (remember, "at rest" is the special case of constant velocity where constant velocity = 0).
From personal experience, the three pieces of software that I have to kick women off to use the computer are:
Microsoft Greetings 99 (creates HallMark-quality cards) PuzzleMaster (jigsaw puzzles) Diablo II
IMHO, women generally like software that they can express themselves in a creative, non-violent fashion. My mother and aunt will spend hours, nonstop, making b-day cards on the computer; they just can't get enough of it. And puzzles...don't even get me started...
On the other hand, my girlfriend wants me to teach her Diablo II, and my best friend's wife and him are constantly wrestling to play Diablo II (only one computer; it's horrible. She loved Diablo, BTW). While both games are pretty violent, there are very simple and fast to learn, with an excellent rewards-based system ("leveling up"). Of course, the fact that you can "dress up" your character *may* have something to do with it...
Another game you should look at is Rogue Spear. It has a lot of the features you have stated (very limited ammo, a bit of fatigue modelling), as well as couple others (variable accuracy depending on weapon, movement, level of injury).
Slashdot Mirror
When is this news? I bought Mandrake 7.0 at WalMart in Canada this spring.
This space expanding principle, is this an intergalatic principle, or does it have intragalactic ramifications, too?
You are right on that account, but it still rules out head-on collisions.
Erm, "friction"? With what?
"Gravitional acceration from the galaxies"
Assume you mean "accreation", how would accreation slow anything down to a measurable degree? And where are the galaxies picking up this extra mass? Pre "Big Bang" proto matter litter?
So, at the end of your first paragraph, you are saying, that the galaxies are NOT colliding head on, but are "glancing through each other", so to speak.
Galaxy self-canabilism, on the grandest scale, in the end, would cause another Big-Bang type singularity, correct?
I thought we had a rather detailed map of all of the galaxies in a 20 megaparsec sphere, including a lot of information regarding their velocity vectors and mass. Admittedly, acceleration vectors would take a tremendous amount of time gather.
>though I'm sure any local solar systems are
> majorly distributed.
Actually, I would disagree with you on that point. We don't feel any a affects of the tritary system only 4-5 light years away (the Centauri system). Ergo, calculate the odds of any star of, let's say, three times the sun's mass of the star coming within 5 light years of the Sun during a collision. Change the numbers to fit this equation:
Force of Gravity = product of masses * the gravitational constant / the distance squared
OR:
F = KmM/(d^2)
with:
F = force needed to affect the earth's orbit
M = mass of rogue star
m = mass of earth,
K = gravitational constant (what ever it is)
d = distance between the two
Assume the F to move the earth out of orbit by, say 0.1% is a constant (and average and scalar, for now), we would have
d^2 = (mK/F) * M
To make matters ease, we replace mK/F, all constants, with one constant, X.
d^2 = X*M
OR (d^2)/M = X
Now, with M = 3*our sun's mass, d = 5 light years, which is the minimum safe distance/mass ratio:
25/3*SunMass = X
So as long as the ratio between the distance of the rogue star and the rogue star mass is less or equal to 25 light years squared divided by three times the sun's mass, everything is okay (keep those units straight!).
They jammed our radar!
It really won't matter, because the odds that any star would come close enough to our system to either A) directly hit anything, or B) even disturb the orbits of any planet with gravitional pulls, would be so remote that it would not be worth calculating.
As well, the "collision" would probably take several hundred thousand years, so defining a point of collision would be relatively pointless.
Lastly, if anything negative (IE: the Earth was going to be creamed by a slow moving star) was going to happen, we would have a simply goofy amount of time to do anything we could. On the flip side, there really isn't anything you can do to stop a star from doing whatever it wants to (stars are stubborn that way, something to do with the "inertia section" in their "Laws and Code of Honour For Stars" book). Aside from a *mass* migration (to, say, somewhere nearby, like the Greater Magellanic cloud), the human race would simply have to put their collective heads between their collective knees and kiss their collective asses goodbye. In about half a million years.
My question is this: how do galaxies collide? I mean, I thought that everything started at point A, there was this Big Bang thingy, and everything flew apart from the point A. If that was the case, it should be impossible that anything flung out of the explosion should be on an intersecting path with anything else from the explosion. Think of it this way: isn't it impossible for the light from the sun to "collide" with other sun light, because they start at the same point, and move outward and apart from each other. Why do the paths of galaxies cross?
>"Outlook not so good." That majic 8-ball knows
>everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
That is the funniest sig I have ever read, thanks for brightening my day up!
One small point, "majic" is properly spelt "magic".
Thanks for the laugh!
>maybe Bill Gates is a Slashdot regular
The grits boy?
Whoever you are, you completely brightened my day!
Thanks!
Please moderate this up!
The one question Katz/survey doesn't seem to concentrate on is whether other people feel neglected because their friends/relative use the Net. I mean, do the people around, say, me, feel neglected because of the time I spend on the web?
From the movie "Wargames" with Matthew Broderick. If it is based on a movie, free feel to let me know.
> Just because there has not been a lethal hack to date
There has, actually. Crackers/hackers/script kiddies/Al Gore/whoever took down a British weather station computer in the 1980s, causing the death of a sailor relying on the information to navigate in stormy weather.
Correct, methane doesn't stink.
Just curious, where did you pick up your vocabulary? I have to say that your usage of the word "pong" cracked me up; as is laughing with you, as opposed to laughing *at* you.
Yes, but each piece of hardware would still need a hardware address, and an address resolution protocol to link IP address to the hardware address.
Unless you can soft code an IP address to a piece of hardware without requiring the hardware to have a hardware address. But that leaves too many problems open (IE: reflashing your toaster and every other applicance every time you decide to move your furniture).
Offhand, I would say that the need for addresses is mainly limited to wireless - remember that all land based systems have hardware that have UNIQUE 48-bit MAC addresses, so it really is pretty stupid for IPv6 to go to a 128-bit base address unless you either revamp the MAC and ARP protocols simutaneously (which, since it is limited to a network segment, would not be *that* terribly hard, and *in theory*, could be done on a network-by-network basis) OR have a complete new and wonderful system (a la wireless) which can have a new, longer machine address/virtual address per machine.
Of course, that asks the serious question: how long *are* the machine addresses within wireless technology? Do they really *need* the 128-bit address length, or are we going to need to keep updating the ARP (or whatever follows ARP) protocols every X years? And how about that backwards compatibility issue? If MAC == 48-bit, then ARP; if MAC == X-bit, then ARPv6; if MAC == ad nauseum.
To me, /. is a place that I use primarily as a discussion site on current news. Despite the often low SNR (having it on Raw and Uncut because one of every 50 trolls is actually humorous), some of the comments are very interesting (like the comments on the possibility of flight on Titan in a recently posted article).
/. does help most real posters real as part of a community. It is less as a *news* paper, and more of a meeting place, where people can read an article, comment on it, and read the comments.
/. are honest about there slants - here we are, take it or leave it. That is *part* of /., why we come back to read it. To change those slants would remove most of the heart and soul of /.
/. is part of VA Linux machine, how does this change anything? I have noticed no serious differences in the news since I first started reading /. in May 1998 (except for the trolls, but they are the price to pay for success). I have not noticed a "boy, ain't VA great" slant. The people the frequent /. (except the trolls; I would like proof that they are people before calling them that) are generally smart enough to say, "Hey, this isn't the /. I started reading!" The niche /. fills is an ugly one for many companies to fill: catering to a minor of intelligent people who won't put about with garbage". It is easier for a company to mass produce garbage and appeal to the lowest common denominator of the masses (Microsoft, anyone?) than it is to appeal to the intelligent minority - besides the fact that the intelligent minority are just that - a minority.
/. change? The formula that Cmdr Taco and the rest have used has made them (and, now, VA Linux) a good chunk of $$$ and a great site for most of us. Why change that?
As well
And besides, how many newspapers let you comment on the stories, and give you the chance to *moderate* the comments (arguements aside about the elegance of the moderating system), and even meta-moderate the moderations? Or how about kuroshin (sp?), which allows you to pick the stories they post? How many newspapers have that level of accountability?
Most newspapers have obvious political agendas that are unstated. At least the
As for the fact that
And why should
Good call.
I don't think you have to worry about sparks; you still need oxygen to ignite methane, and I have not read anything that indicates that Titan has a significant oxygen atmosphere.
I must say, Forge, that this is probably the most interesting comment in this whole discussion. It reminds me of what the humans believe the Overlords' world looks like in Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End"; since the Overlords are huge, but still have flight-worthy wings, that their home planet must have low gravity and a dense atmosphere.
Or the title of the Slashdotr headline:
"Rain On Saturn's Titan"
You mean - "Saturn orbital objectily warm it" right? I mean, it's not like the rings on the planet on the heading illustration give it away, or nothing.
Er, "normal" accelleration? I am not sure I follow that. I will assume, from your "crushed when the ship" comment, that you believe "normal" accelleration (a) is when 0 < a < 10g; that is normal acceleration is between nothing and about 10 times Earth's gravity. This is a misconception; acceleration is simply the change of velocity over atime. Acceleration can be as high or as low as the force can be generated.
In Star Trek, the main reason the ship crew and officers don't become smears on the opposite wall is because ships are equipped with inertial dampers - devices that nullify the effects of extreme acceleration inside the ship (kind of impossible, by most Newtonian physics. See also - reactionless drive). Other sci-fi books assume that the warp bubble that the ship rides distorts the space around it, but doesn't warp the space inside it - the end effect being that since the stuff (crew) inside the bubble are not accelerating with respect to the space inside the bubble, they do not undergo any acceleration. Babylon 5 and Star Wars never exceeds 5g, and use hyperspace (with little acceleration) to transverse long distances. Joe Haldeman's "Forever War" uses statis chambers to hold the crew from rupture during hi-g manouvres.
As for the multi-dimensional sensor, it wouldn't be a problem. Most nuclear submarines have two-dimensional inertial trackers, which monitor accelerations forward-backward and starboard-port. The creation of a three-dimensional tracker is left as a exercise for the reader.
I agree with your interpretation of the captain's orders, and you see how few Americans would understand some of the complex ideas (such as "no coffee breaks" and "no cowboy stuff").
Doppler effects on stars, quasars, etc.
Measuring the movement of the ship relative to interstellar medium and dark matter.
Would say inertial tracking, but if acceleration is zero, than that wouldn't work. Inertial memory would be a close enough approximation, though (just have the computer remember the accelerations that the ship had gone through, vector sum them up, and calculate the needed counter-acceleration vector to neutralize).
What about some sort of galactic GPS system? Time beacons are used in Star Trek, so the idea of a grid of beacons would not be far-fetched (for the Star Trek/Wars worlds, of course). Just use Doppler measurements on the signals (this assumes that the beacons themselves are stationary, of course).
Of course, on the flip side, most of the time anyone asks for a complete stop is in orbit around something, so there is a point to declare the ship stationary to (whether it is a planet, an anomoly, another ship, a star, yada yada yada). I really can't remember any Star Wars/Trek episode where a complete stop was ordered in the middle of deep space.
As well, let's say that a complete stop is called in the middle of deep space. So what if the ship is moving a little bit? Rest assured, between our sun and Proxima Centauri, sixty miles an hour is rather insignificant; perhaps it would be called "pseudo-stationary". As well, as long as the ship wasn't accelerating, the velocity would not be a problem; you and the ship are moving the same velocity, you would think that the ship is stationary. Anything that would need a complete stop to do (repairs, investigation, commercial breaks, etc) could be done at a constant velocity just as easy (remember, "at rest" is the special case of constant velocity where constant velocity = 0).
From personal experience, the three pieces of software that I have to kick women off to use the computer are:
Microsoft Greetings 99 (creates HallMark-quality cards)
PuzzleMaster (jigsaw puzzles)
Diablo II
IMHO, women generally like software that they can express themselves in a creative, non-violent fashion. My mother and aunt will spend hours, nonstop, making b-day cards on the computer; they just can't get enough of it. And puzzles...don't even get me started...
On the other hand, my girlfriend wants me to teach her Diablo II, and my best friend's wife and him are constantly wrestling to play Diablo II (only one computer; it's horrible. She loved Diablo, BTW). While both games are pretty violent, there are very simple and fast to learn, with an excellent rewards-based system ("leveling up"). Of course, the fact that you can "dress up" your character *may* have something to do with it...
And the link:
http://www.redstorm.com/rogue_spear/
Another game you should look at is Rogue Spear. It has a lot of the features you have stated (very limited ammo, a bit of fatigue modelling), as well as couple others (variable accuracy depending on weapon, movement, level of injury).