2. Totally give you a way to avoid getting calls from your Spouse/Ex/In-laws/whoever. (Sorry, Honey, I was getting wired up and browsing the intar-web!)
It is the conservatives that you need to worry about, because they let their bias show in their work
Hmm... Well frankly, I don't think it's possible to be unbiased in one's reporting. Adjectives, adverbs, even sentence structure-- all can slant the written word to the author's personal views and foibles. From my point of view at least, I would prefer to read something by someone who lets their bias show openly (ex, "The politician, who is a total arsehole and probably kicks puppies for fun, replied..."). At least that way I don't have to sit there and dig for it to make sure that the way in which an event or quote is portrayed isn't somehow coloring how I think of it, encouraging me in a certain direction.
I find it humorous that someone would think that effectively telegraphing one's personal views would somehow be more insidious than burying it, but still selectively reporting facts, using elipses to butcher and twist quotes, et cetera, et cetera. Or, how about that lovely way that, say, Reuters dances around using the word "terrorist" to refer to people who run around with this summer's fashionable new line of Semtex-lined coats. "Terrorist" or "Freedom-fighter/militant/partisan/patriot..." Which one has the negative slant to it?
Although I prefer not to be insulted at all, I would much prefer to be called a f***tard to my face than to have someone going around calling me a mouthbreather behind my back.
Get along better with their own, eh? I think that would be part of the problem.
When you get along so famously with People Like Us, then People Like Them seem even more mysterious, or strange, or downright evil. After all, if one does so well in one's own little circle, then there's no dang reason to suffer the foibles and annoyances of those who aren't part of your group.
And that's how wars start-- "I don't have to take this crap. Come on, guys, let's get him!"
Sounds like a very, very large Fuel-air/Thermobaric bomb to me.
That would be ugly. Supremely ugly. If it dispersed it that wide and still managed to work right, we wouldn't be talking about the mother of all incindiary bombs. We would be talking about a thermobaric bomb with a firestorm and sudden pressure drop so large, it would probably be like a mid-sized asteroid impact. Ack.
Orbital Slugs -- a non-Buck Rogers alternative
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 1
Yeesh, this is quite a flame war you have here, heh.
Well. My two cents follows... A year or so ago I was listening to NPR and heard an interesting talk given by a retired Air Force officer about the weaponization of space. Now, he was against it, but that's not why I'm bringing it up. Thusly: some of the stuff he described was pretty run of the mill as far as what people think of when they hear the phrase, "space weapons--" beam weapons, space-nukes, etc.
But he also mentioned the use of specially-shaped orbital slugs. Basically such a device would be like taking a solid Apollo or Gemini capsule, heat-armor and all, intended to be dropped from orbit and used like a pinpoint meteor strike.
Far from being a pie-in-the-sky "now we can shoot down the enemy missles with this brand new laser satellite. Oh crap, they've loaded a nuke on a tramp freighter," it would really be a very useful tactical weapon once you could get the system refined soas to actually hit the intended target (always a nice thing for a weapons system to be able to do). I mean, this sort of thing could bust bunkers, missile silos, and pretty much anything that sits on the ground (as long as you can tell where it will be, generally, when your slug hits), and it would be (fairly) cheap to make in comparison to a laser cannon, being the space equivalent of dropping a rock on your enemy's head. A very, very fast-moving rock, with incredible amounts of kinetic energy.
Speak up if I'm wrong, but I would think that the only really good way to deflect one would be to try to hit it with a powerful laser-- but considering the size of the slug and the fact that it's basically a large, quickly-falling object, that would have to be one heck of a laser array (or it would have to start hitting it from very far out). You wouldn't have to worry about an enemy anti-missile hitting propulsion or blowing up the warhead prematurely, because there wouldn't need to BE a warhead or (unless you wanted to manouver it mid-fall) propulsion.
So in effect, space-based weapons don't have to be Buck Rogers ray guns, or big nukes, or huge anti-missile nets. There's a definite niche for space weapons as a sort of long-ranged tactical artillery with awe-inspiring accuracy and devestating effect. As to the numbers you'd need to support a full military campaign, I'll leave that to the people actually trying to make the things.
Um... yeah. I can't think of a witty comment for this, but here it is. Apparently Sen. Hatch not only wants to support the music nazis, he's also an aspiring artist himself! Right.
Let's see... Short tons minus kilograms...
Are you related to one of the NASA engineers working on that lost Mars probe a few years back?
Seriously, though... does the imballance mean that we're going to end up with earth sliding into a different orbit eventually? Or will it just stay on the same path because the overal mass difference is insignificant, astronomically?
Slashdot Mirror
1. Make such awesome sounds and
2. Totally give you a way to avoid getting calls from your Spouse/Ex/In-laws/whoever. (Sorry, Honey, I was getting wired up and browsing the intar-web!)
Hmm... Well frankly, I don't think it's possible to be unbiased in one's reporting. Adjectives, adverbs, even sentence structure-- all can slant the written word to the author's personal views and foibles. From my point of view at least, I would prefer to read something by someone who lets their bias show openly (ex, "The politician, who is a total arsehole and probably kicks puppies for fun, replied..."). At least that way I don't have to sit there and dig for it to make sure that the way in which an event or quote is portrayed isn't somehow coloring how I think of it, encouraging me in a certain direction.
I find it humorous that someone would think that effectively telegraphing one's personal views would somehow be more insidious than burying it, but still selectively reporting facts, using elipses to butcher and twist quotes, et cetera, et cetera. Or, how about that lovely way that, say, Reuters dances around using the word "terrorist" to refer to people who run around with this summer's fashionable new line of Semtex-lined coats. "Terrorist" or "Freedom-fighter/militant/partisan/patriot..." Which one has the negative slant to it?
Although I prefer not to be insulted at all, I would much prefer to be called a f***tard to my face than to have someone going around calling me a mouthbreather behind my back.
Oh, and before I forget... Oh, that Liberal Media!
When you get along so famously with People Like Us, then People Like Them seem even more mysterious, or strange, or downright evil. After all, if one does so well in one's own little circle, then there's no dang reason to suffer the foibles and annoyances of those who aren't part of your group.
And that's how wars start-- "I don't have to take this crap. Come on, guys, let's get him!"
SHE GRASPED HIS THROBBING PURPLE WARRIOR IN HER HANDS STOP. OH SHE SAID ITS SO BIG STOP.
That would be ugly. Supremely ugly. If it dispersed it that wide and still managed to work right, we wouldn't be talking about the mother of all incindiary bombs. We would be talking about a thermobaric bomb with a firestorm and sudden pressure drop so large, it would probably be like a mid-sized asteroid impact. Ack.
Well. My two cents follows... A year or so ago I was listening to NPR and heard an interesting talk given by a retired Air Force officer about the weaponization of space. Now, he was against it, but that's not why I'm bringing it up. Thusly: some of the stuff he described was pretty run of the mill as far as what people think of when they hear the phrase, "space weapons--" beam weapons, space-nukes, etc.
But he also mentioned the use of specially-shaped orbital slugs. Basically such a device would be like taking a solid Apollo or Gemini capsule, heat-armor and all, intended to be dropped from orbit and used like a pinpoint meteor strike. Far from being a pie-in-the-sky "now we can shoot down the enemy missles with this brand new laser satellite. Oh crap, they've loaded a nuke on a tramp freighter," it would really be a very useful tactical weapon once you could get the system refined soas to actually hit the intended target (always a nice thing for a weapons system to be able to do). I mean, this sort of thing could bust bunkers, missile silos, and pretty much anything that sits on the ground (as long as you can tell where it will be, generally, when your slug hits), and it would be (fairly) cheap to make in comparison to a laser cannon, being the space equivalent of dropping a rock on your enemy's head. A very, very fast-moving rock, with incredible amounts of kinetic energy.
Speak up if I'm wrong, but I would think that the only really good way to deflect one would be to try to hit it with a powerful laser-- but considering the size of the slug and the fact that it's basically a large, quickly-falling object, that would have to be one heck of a laser array (or it would have to start hitting it from very far out). You wouldn't have to worry about an enemy anti-missile hitting propulsion or blowing up the warhead prematurely, because there wouldn't need to BE a warhead or (unless you wanted to manouver it mid-fall) propulsion.
So in effect, space-based weapons don't have to be Buck Rogers ray guns, or big nukes, or huge anti-missile nets. There's a definite niche for space weapons as a sort of long-ranged tactical artillery with awe-inspiring accuracy and devestating effect. As to the numbers you'd need to support a full military campaign, I'll leave that to the people actually trying to make the things.
The Music of Senator Orrin Hatch
And, as Dave Barry says, I am not making this up.
Is anyone else disappointed? I read the title and thought it was going to be an article about pr0n.
Someone from Berkley coming up with ways to discriminate? Stop the presses, we've got a live one!
In all seriousness, I must say that the classification system he's got there seems pretty much idiot-proof and well thought out. Thanks!
Guess we won't be calling anything "Rama" for a while.
Are you related to one of the NASA engineers working on that lost Mars probe a few years back?
Seriously, though... does the imballance mean that we're going to end up with earth sliding into a different orbit eventually? Or will it just stay on the same path because the overal mass difference is insignificant, astronomically?
Ok, then.
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
I don't get it. If Prez Bush doesn't have WMD, then what do we have in all those silos in Montana?
(disclaimer: satire)