we cannot prevent the abuse of technology but perhaps only delay it through military means.
it is imperative that we (the U.S.A) develop this technology first so that we may be able to defend against a potential nano-threat in the future. otherwise we will be at the mercy of those who wouldnt think twice about using it.
by developing the technology first we achieve a weapon held responsibly at best, or create a stalemate (much like nuclear weapons during the cold ware) at worst.
Sure, it is explained in the book "Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System: The First 100 Missions"
"The engineering oriented will linger over Jenkins' history of the design of reusable spacecraft, which began on the drawing boards of Nazi rocket scientists who proposed an atmosphere-skipping craft to bomb New York. The American military's desire for a nuclear bomber lay behind the first space shuttle project, the canceled Dyna-Soar spacecraft of the early 1960s. When revived in the early 1970s, minus the bomb bay, the space shuttle showed a compromise configuration; its might-have-been structures are attested by drawings of about 40 alternative concepts."
The original beta version of the shuttle was called the "dyna-soar":
since when does international law mean anything? just look at antarctica, according to "international law" it is divided up nicely into slices with many different countries each having a piece. yet everyone knows that the USA and Australia have grabbed the whole thing..and if anyone doesn't like it, what are they gonna do about it?
IL doesn't mean anything since no one has the balls to back it up. and when you talk about space: anyone out in space is going to be in the same league and therefore the same position as the USA so they wont be arguing against property rights either. the only ones arguing will be those nations that dont have the ability to go out there.
oh boo hoo. unless someone is utterly without reason they would already realize by now that space is the next battlefield.
anywhere that there are resources, there will be fighting. lets be the first to get out there ourselves, and stop whining about it. afterall, you think apollo was just about getting moon rocks??
and except for the small fact that they flew a couple of planes into the WTC...and that they hate everything american. other than that saudi arabia is great.
one possibility would be to utilize the L2 LaGrange point on the far side of the moon where assembly of a spacecraft could take place. once that was completed the craft would just need to kick up its tangential velocity to meet with mars.
the problem is that the return path is not available until >1 year after arriving at mars. so if not a suicide mission, and if they have the fuel, then they would only need to hold out for around a year + the 9 months travel time back. makes the apollo missions look like a walk in the park.
it might take more than that in order to survive until the minimum return window of 455 days, leaving any sooner than this and there wont be any earth waiting for you. so you better be prepared to stay alot longer than overnight:)
this does not take into account the phase shift of water due to atmospheric pressure, solubility or hydrogen bonding between water and a hydrated compound. the effect of all three of these things would significantly depress the freezing point.
the freezing point of a liquid is depressed proportionally to the amount of solute dissolved in it..hence the reason for "antifreeze" in your car. antifreeze is nothing more than ethylene glycol, which dissolves well in water and is relatively unreactive.
we also dont know if there may be some heat coming from the soil as there is on earth. so the water may not _necessarily_ be in a frozen state at all times since afterall, there are clouds of water vapor on mars.
fyi, the depletion of the ipv4 address space IS still a problem, all that NAT and CIDR have done is to delay the impending crisis by several years. At some point (most likely within a decade at the earliest) ipv6 will be a necessity. it is also important to note that without CIDR and supernetting the routing tables of the internet would have grown beyond the capabilities of the routers at the time.
currently more than 35% of the ipv4 address space has been depleted. ICANN data shows >7% annual depletion rate over the last few years. you do the math.
i would like to point out that several amateur astronomers on various forums swear that the images they have taken of mars shows a blue atmospher. the cost of a good telescope and CCD camera is such that many people around the world have corroborated this, and there are images out there for all to see what mars really looks like.
did it ever occur that this may be a result of china's recently annouced goals in space? has the "opening bell" of a new cold war been rung?
the parent complains that we wont do anything in space. then ppl complain that we have a "military-industrial complex" that is milking it...which is it??!!? cant be both
the distances involved are so great that directional communication is the norm. if you cant guarantee a particular orientation (in the case of a crash, for instance) then it is highly unlikely that this would help at all. if its operation were made to be omnidirectional then it wouldnt help in tracking it either, its not like there are ppl on the surface looking through rubble. the best way to spot wreckage would be the good old fashioned way: optically...and even then it would come down to pixels that don't seem quite right.
i would be inclined to disagree: it would have everything to do Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
The work of Church/Turing/Godel points to the impossibility of having a function (in this case our proof verifier) that can determine whether every statement given is true or false (within an axiomatic system, which this would be). This would mean that there will always be things which cannot be proven. And in fact there are some examples of this already in mathematics.
However....it is unlikely that this would pose a problem with an automated proof verifier, unless the proof happened to be one such statement (such as feeding in the statement "The proof verifier will never say that this statement is false"). WE would know that the statement is true, based upon the non-response of the proof verifier...but the machine would never know it.
really? and how exactly did these millions of Palestinians become refugees? having heard some stories firsthand by people who were run out of their homes by Jewish gangs, I've come to suspect that we aren't necessary told the true story. Perhaps the Israelis learned well from their Nazi captors in executing a Lebensraum of their own, since "God" has of course "given" the land to them, how convenient.
enantiomerism is a result of carbon chirality. enantiomers are molecules that are "mirror-images" of one another, they have the same molecular formula but are arranged in the exact opposite manner. they are for the most part chemically indistinguishable in their properties. a typical organic chemistry reaction will yield a racemic (equal) mixture of both enantiomers.
however biological systems exclusively use only one type of enantiomers: all amino acids are L, all sugars are D and all nucleic acids are L. it is a mystery as to why this is, but it is theorized that detecting a higher-than-average amount of one enantiomer over another would be extremely convincing evidence of life.
my point was that once it had landed, yes it would right itself, but it would not go ahead and do something like open the solar panels and so forth.
you say "Wow, so you know the one way travel time at the time"..that was direct from NASA's site, not my word, so you are arguing with them, not me at this point. nice.
and you dont have to make personal attacks. as for me not knowing physics, we can discuss the Riemann curvature tensor in differential form if you like, or solve the Schrodinger equation using the Lanczos method. you may disagree with my opinions, but believe me i know a little of physics.
Slashdot Mirror
we cannot prevent the abuse of technology but perhaps only delay it through military means.
it is imperative that we (the U.S.A) develop this technology first so that we may be able to defend against a potential nano-threat in the future. otherwise we will be at the mercy of those who wouldnt think twice about using it.
by developing the technology first we achieve a weapon held responsibly at best, or create a stalemate (much like nuclear weapons during the cold ware) at worst.
not that i dont believe you, but could you give an example of one?
this, btw, is actually the source of the phrase "to wear a wire".
during the early days of the prohibition, informants would actually use one of these concealed in a briefcase or some other "ingenious" disguise.
Sure, it is explained in the book "Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System: The First 100 Missions"
"The engineering oriented will linger over Jenkins' history of the design of reusable spacecraft, which began on the drawing boards of Nazi rocket scientists who proposed an atmosphere-skipping craft to bomb New York. The American military's desire for a nuclear bomber lay behind the first space shuttle project, the canceled Dyna-Soar spacecraft of the early 1960s. When revived in the early 1970s, minus the bomb bay, the space shuttle showed a compromise configuration; its might-have-been structures are attested by drawings of about 40 alternative concepts."
The original beta version of the shuttle was called the "dyna-soar":
http://www.deepcold.com/deepcold/dyna_main.html
meanwhile, I get moderated as flamebait because i use the word "peacenik"?? who moderates these messages anyway
since when does international law mean anything? just look at antarctica, according to "international law" it is divided up nicely into slices with many different countries each having a piece. yet everyone knows that the USA and Australia have grabbed the whole thing..and if anyone doesn't like it, what are they gonna do about it?
IL doesn't mean anything since no one has the balls to back it up. and when you talk about space: anyone out in space is going to be in the same league and therefore the same position as the USA so they wont be arguing against property rights either. the only ones arguing will be those nations that dont have the ability to go out there.
yeah, well the space shuttle was originally designed as a nuclear bomber so it cant be all that bad, can it?
oh boo hoo. unless someone is utterly without reason they would already realize by now that space is the next battlefield.
anywhere that there are resources, there will be fighting. lets be the first to get out there ourselves, and stop whining about it. afterall, you think apollo was just about getting moon rocks??
and except for the small fact that they flew a couple of planes into the WTC...and that they hate everything american. other than that saudi arabia is great.
this is a very realistic scenario.
> I mean, they can't just shut off the radio and ignore the person.
thats exactly what we do, build the radio so that a remote command will kill it permanently.
one possibility would be to utilize the L2 LaGrange point on the far side of the moon where assembly of a spacecraft could take place. once that was completed the craft would just need to kick up its tangential velocity to meet with mars. the problem is that the return path is not available until >1 year after arriving at mars. so if not a suicide mission, and if they have the fuel, then they would only need to hold out for around a year + the 9 months travel time back. makes the apollo missions look like a walk in the park.
it might take more than that in order to survive until the minimum return window of 455 days, leaving any sooner than this and there wont be any earth waiting for you. so you better be prepared to stay alot longer than overnight :)
this does not take into account the phase shift of water due to atmospheric pressure, solubility or hydrogen bonding between water and a hydrated compound. the effect of all three of these things would significantly depress the freezing point.
the freezing point of a liquid is depressed proportionally to the amount of solute dissolved in it..hence the reason for "antifreeze" in your car. antifreeze is nothing more than ethylene glycol, which dissolves well in water and is relatively unreactive.
we also dont know if there may be some heat coming from the soil as there is on earth. so the water may not _necessarily_ be in a frozen state at all times since afterall, there are clouds of water vapor on mars.
so water on mars does not need to be frozen.
if anything ipv6 will be more secure since there is mandatory ipsec support and some of the holes in the ipv4 protocol have been eliminated.
fyi, the depletion of the ipv4 address space IS still a problem, all that NAT and CIDR have done is to delay the impending crisis by several years. At some point (most likely within a decade at the earliest) ipv6 will be a necessity. it is also important to note that without CIDR and supernetting the routing tables of the internet would have grown beyond the capabilities of the routers at the time. currently more than 35% of the ipv4 address space has been depleted. ICANN data shows >7% annual depletion rate over the last few years. you do the math.
i would like to point out that several amateur astronomers on various forums swear that the images they have taken of mars shows a blue atmospher. the cost of a good telescope and CCD camera is such that many people around the world have corroborated this, and there are images out there for all to see what mars really looks like.
did it ever occur that this may be a result of china's recently annouced goals in space? has the "opening bell" of a new cold war been rung? the parent complains that we wont do anything in space. then ppl complain that we have a "military-industrial complex" that is milking it...which is it??!!? cant be both
this may be possible, but i doubt it. notice that the fate of the polar lander is still being debated from images of the "maybe" crash site.
the distances involved are so great that directional communication is the norm. if you cant guarantee a particular orientation (in the case of a crash, for instance) then it is highly unlikely that this would help at all. if its operation were made to be omnidirectional then it wouldnt help in tracking it either, its not like there are ppl on the surface looking through rubble. the best way to spot wreckage would be the good old fashioned way: optically...and even then it would come down to pixels that don't seem quite right.
...may as well mention the true causes of aids
i would be inclined to disagree: it would have everything to do Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The work of Church/Turing/Godel points to the impossibility of having a function (in this case our proof verifier) that can determine whether every statement given is true or false (within an axiomatic system, which this would be). This would mean that there will always be things which cannot be proven. And in fact there are some examples of this already in mathematics. However....it is unlikely that this would pose a problem with an automated proof verifier, unless the proof happened to be one such statement (such as feeding in the statement "The proof verifier will never say that this statement is false"). WE would know that the statement is true, based upon the non-response of the proof verifier...but the machine would never know it.
really? and how exactly did these millions of Palestinians become refugees? having heard some stories firsthand by people who were run out of their homes by Jewish gangs, I've come to suspect that we aren't necessary told the true story. Perhaps the Israelis learned well from their Nazi captors in executing a Lebensraum of their own, since "God" has of course "given" the land to them, how convenient.
enantiomerism is a result of carbon chirality. enantiomers are molecules that are "mirror-images" of one another, they have the same molecular formula but are arranged in the exact opposite manner. they are for the most part chemically indistinguishable in their properties. a typical organic chemistry reaction will yield a racemic (equal) mixture of both enantiomers. however biological systems exclusively use only one type of enantiomers: all amino acids are L, all sugars are D and all nucleic acids are L. it is a mystery as to why this is, but it is theorized that detecting a higher-than-average amount of one enantiomer over another would be extremely convincing evidence of life.
my point was that once it had landed, yes it would right itself, but it would not go ahead and do something like open the solar panels and so forth. you say "Wow, so you know the one way travel time at the time"..that was direct from NASA's site, not my word, so you are arguing with them, not me at this point. nice. and you dont have to make personal attacks. as for me not knowing physics, we can discuss the Riemann curvature tensor in differential form if you like, or solve the Schrodinger equation using the Lanczos method. you may disagree with my opinions, but believe me i know a little of physics.