In a 10 m/s2 gravity field 72 grams of mass has a weight of 720 mN. Given that Earth's field is ~9.8 m/s2 at the surface that's about a two percent error in converting to something most of the public can visualise.
If the effect was real, it would also be an enormous amount of thrust from that amount of power. I bet you could produce a couple of Kw from less than 72 kg of thin film solar cells, and 0.001 G of continuous thrust would get you whizzing round the inner solar system pretty fast. Asteroid mining here we come!!!
Realistically I think he is either mistaken or a fraud, but I hope I am wrong.
I can't imagine any legal grounds anyone would have for a lawsuit, in this instance. You can sell or trade or give away your games all you want, leaving the first sale doctrine intact. The fact that the game no longer works for the poor guy who bought it isn't Microsoft's problem since they aren't obligated to provide support for used products.
That won't fly in AU. Goods must be fit for purpose, and second-hand sales do not erase the manufacturers responsibility. A quick reading of the consumer guide seems to say you could buy it second hand and then demand a full refund from the manufaturer if it didn't work due to a manufacting defect. The interesting challange would be to get disabling DRM defined as a fault with the goods.
Link to the guide for those interested: http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/the_acl/downloads/consumer_guarantees_guide.rtf
You will also need an exceptionally strong and fast winch.
Just hook it up when Mars is ahead and wind it in. Earth gains energy, moves to a higher orbit. Mars loses, and drops into a faster, lower orbit. You would probably want to attach it at one of the poles, and you would need to be careful not to alter the axial tilt. The gyroscope efffect can help here. Do it right and you could end up with two planets in the habitable zone.
Unless they've already heard it before or travelled to the US, most people in the rest of the world won't believe that americans pay to receive calls or text messages. They laugh and think you're joking. Convince them you're serious and they still won't believe until they check it.
It's not always that simple, though. Why was the car stopping?
Here, it doesn't matter. If you hit the car travelling directly in front of you, you were, by legal definition, following too close or not paying attention, ergo your fault. No exceptions. The only possible defence is on a multilane road if they cut in front of you and immediately braked hard. And I mean immediately, not 10 seconds later. You are expected to maintain a safe stopping distance. If a cop turns up and starts asking questions, the only thing he is determining is whether to charge the following driver or not. If you braked really hard, he probably will let them off with a warning, knowing that they will be paying the damages anyway.
More to the point, though: In the US, there exists "comparative negligence" laws that make it possible that even if I am perhaps 60% at fault for stopping abruptly and receive a citation, you, and the 3 people following you might be considered - in civil court, not traffic court - to be 40% at fault for the accident because you were following too close and possibly speeding. Now, let's pretend that the four of you folks (really, your insurance companies) decide that you don't want to pay for my heavy foot on the brake, and you sue the city for its' comparative negligence role in the accident - shortening its' yellow light cycle from 3 seconds to 2.2 seconds at the lights where it has cameras, (in an attempt to increase revenue). You can see how this could cost quite a bit in legal fees alone, regardless of whom is decided to be at what part at fault, even in a single accident.
If you tried to sue someone here for stopping too suddenly you would get laughed out of court (in the unlikely event that you found a solicitor that would take the case).
There are those who are pro-camera, who usually turn out to be affiliated with the makers of these systems, and those who are against, usually the expert witness traffic engineers who testify against municipalities in cases of those involved in rear-end accidents with the people who stopped for a changing light.
Here in Aus, it is always the fault of the rear car. It doesn't matter if the car in front emergency braked for a butterfly, if you hit it, it's your fault. If the cops get called (mandatory if there are any injuries) there is a pretty good chance you'll end up with a dangerous driving charge as well as full liability for any damage.
My point wasn't that private individuals should have the weaponry to stand up to the army. Personally, I am conflicted on that argument. I am anti-authoritarian, but some people I wouldn't trust with nerf gun. My main point was that the correct way to restrict weapons is to change the second amendment, not pretend it doesn't exist.
As an outsider reading it, I would say that the second amendment reads pretty clearly that the right to keep and carry weapons cannot be restricted. Any law in the USA that purports to control weapons should be unconstitutional. Arguing ethics, morals, need, danger or anything else in regards to weapons is (or should be) irrelevent. If you don't like that situation you should work to get the second amendment changed, not work to undermine the constitution.
America has, in the past, been an example of freedom and rule of law that has inspired many people. It would be a tragedy if you were to undermine your rule of law and slide into becoming a police state by subverting your constitution. If you truly believe that the situation and weapons have evolved to the point where that amendment is no longer needed, or needs to be changed, then the constitution contains methods for amending itself. Please don't throw away the rule of law.
That's really just a far-future story, with a lot of relatavistic travel. What people are complaining about is any serious story with a grandfather paradox. They are logically incoherent. You can play it for comedy, eg one of the better time travel scenes is in the Bill and Ted movie where they and the bad guy keep going back to trump each other's move.
But seriously, there are only two possibilities for time travel. (1) The universe is fully deteministic in which case the time-travel already occurred and the travel will change nothing, or (2) alternate universe "time-lines" in which case whatever horrible thing you are trying to change still occurred in the original universe and you have just created a copy. Nobody ever deals with that.
I don't think any robots at all will be involved. "Directors" are going to morph into a new job where they sit at a screen and direct virtual actors. Computer generated SFX and location shots will be there instantly. The vision a director will require will change, more emphasis on telling a good story, less on the ability to visualize based on incomplete scenes. Also, continuity will be easy, no cost to switch scenes will mean just working through the script linearly. The computer will remember everything. No need for the ability to massage the egos of prima-donnas or deal with the unions. Massive cost reductions all round. The vision of the movie industry in the future is a few guys in a room with a big screen, directing a computer. Movies will still vary just as wildly in quality. You are going to get individuals who save up, rent a "studio" and produce something equal to "The Room". You are also going to get incredible movies, made by obsessed individuals who buy the equipment and spent years making their vision come true. And everything in between. And almost all of it will be on the net.
Have you watched the improvement in CGI over the last few years? I would argue that it won't be more than another decade or two at the longest and we will be getting new movies starring the best actors of the last hundred years. And about a week after that, incredibly talented actors you've never heard of who don't actually exist. At the moment, the uncanny vally limits this, but I expect them to cross it fairly soon. And then a whole lot of entertainment jobs go west. Load the script into the computer, interact with the narrow AI for a while "directing" it and then come back the next morning to a fully rendered, indistinguishable from live, completed movie.
Interesting. But I was referring to the Sex Party name. The Pirate Party had more history and reasons to keep the name. The Sex Party often gets written off as a bunch of perverts without even looking at their policies.
Also the point of capturing the attention of apathetic voters has slightly less relevance in Aus, where we have compulsory voting (approx 97% turnout). You only have to be less repulsive than the other parties, you don't have to actually campaign to get the voters out.
It's very easy to make it self-enforce. Only recognize copyright on software that has its source code in escrow. Similar to the old USA system of registering copyright.
Ethically You can keep a secret if you want to. But if you go down to the pub and get drunk enough to tell someone that your bag of loot is under the second floorboard in the spare room then you have no rights over that person. You can prevent them from entering your house and lifting floorboards but you cannot cut out the piece of their brain that remembers what you said. You cannot even prevent them from telling other people. Do you really not understand the ethical difference between not revealing information you know and imposing force on someone else to control information that they know? Legally Copyright is the time-limited sole right to make copies granted by the government. It is not the ownership of information.
Not that I'm advocating this, mind. But there are many pirates who honestly believe that current copyright law is unjust, and rather than stand up, be counted, and take the rap, they choose to just ignore the law in private.
Given that the copyright cartels have lobbied to the point where standing up and being counted equals fuck up your entire life for ever, I can't say I blame them. An arrest for standing up for civil rights would practically be a badge of honour in most places. A million dollar fine and 35 years in prison for copying some songs, not so much.
Your post assumes the premise that you can own information. This is incorrect. You can own a physical item that embodies a copy of information and, under current law, you can have the exclusive right to distribute some information, but you cannot own the information itself.
Nasty algae blooms seem like they should be fairly easy to avoid. Take it slow with the first iron additions, measure the response and calibrate from there. A major looming problem that doesn't get enough attention (imho) is the impending collapse of wild ocean fisheries. Realistically there is no way to stop the current over-fishing in international waters, and giving the eco-system a boost seems the best way to mitigate the damage.
Pretty soon the word "racism" will be devoid of all meaning, due to being constantly diluted and trivialized by constantly being used where it does not apply.
What makes you think we haven't actually gotten there already?
Slashdot Mirror
In a 10 m/s2 gravity field 72 grams of mass has a weight of 720 mN.
Given that Earth's field is ~9.8 m/s2 at the surface that's about a two percent error in converting to something most of the public can visualise.
If the effect was real, it would also be an enormous amount of thrust from that amount of power.
I bet you could produce a couple of Kw from less than 72 kg of thin film solar cells, and 0.001 G of continuous thrust would get you whizzing round the inner solar system pretty fast.
Asteroid mining here we come!!!
Realistically I think he is either mistaken or a fraud, but I hope I am wrong.
I can't imagine any legal grounds anyone would have for a lawsuit, in this instance. You can sell or trade or give away your games all you want, leaving the first sale doctrine intact. The fact that the game no longer works for the poor guy who bought it isn't Microsoft's problem since they aren't obligated to provide support for used products.
That won't fly in AU. Goods must be fit for purpose, and second-hand sales do not erase the manufacturers responsibility. A quick reading of the consumer guide seems to say you could buy it second hand and then demand a full refund from the manufaturer if it didn't work due to a manufacting defect. The interesting challange would be to get disabling DRM defined as a fault with the goods.
Link to the guide for those interested: http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/the_acl/downloads/consumer_guarantees_guide.rtf
You will also need an exceptionally strong and fast winch.
Just hook it up when Mars is ahead and wind it in. Earth gains energy, moves to a higher orbit. Mars loses, and drops into a faster, lower orbit.
You would probably want to attach it at one of the poles, and you would need to be careful not to alter the axial tilt. The gyroscope efffect can help here.
Do it right and you could end up with two planets in the habitable zone.
The other option is to make an artificial ring to block out about 1% of The Sun's energy.
This sounds quite a bit easier than moving the planet, and as a bonus you could build it out of solar-power satellites.
Unless they've already heard it before or travelled to the US, most people in the rest of the world won't believe that americans pay to receive calls or text messages.
They laugh and think you're joking. Convince them you're serious and they still won't believe until they check it.
It's not always that simple, though. Why was the car stopping?
Here, it doesn't matter. If you hit the car travelling directly in front of you, you were, by legal definition, following too close or not paying attention, ergo your fault. No exceptions.
The only possible defence is on a multilane road if they cut in front of you and immediately braked hard. And I mean immediately, not 10 seconds later. You are expected to maintain a safe stopping distance.
If a cop turns up and starts asking questions, the only thing he is determining is whether to charge the following driver or not. If you braked really hard, he probably will let them off with a warning, knowing that they will be paying the damages anyway.
More to the point, though: In the US, there exists "comparative negligence" laws that make it possible that even if I am perhaps 60% at fault for stopping abruptly and receive a citation, you, and the 3 people following you might be considered - in civil court, not traffic court - to be 40% at fault for the accident because you were following too close and possibly speeding. Now, let's pretend that the four of you folks (really, your insurance companies) decide that you don't want to pay for my heavy foot on the brake, and you sue the city for its' comparative negligence role in the accident - shortening its' yellow light cycle from 3 seconds to 2.2 seconds at the lights where it has cameras, (in an attempt to increase revenue). You can see how this could cost quite a bit in legal fees alone, regardless of whom is decided to be at what part at fault, even in a single accident.
If you tried to sue someone here for stopping too suddenly you would get laughed out of court (in the unlikely event that you found a solicitor that would take the case).
There are those who are pro-camera, who usually turn out to be affiliated with the makers of these systems, and those who are against, usually the expert witness traffic engineers who testify against municipalities in cases of those involved in rear-end accidents with the people who stopped for a changing light.
Here in Aus, it is always the fault of the rear car. It doesn't matter if the car in front emergency braked for a butterfly, if you hit it, it's your fault.
If the cops get called (mandatory if there are any injuries) there is a pretty good chance you'll end up with a dangerous driving charge as well as full liability for any damage.
They probably used molasses values in their fluid sims.
Given many of the drivers I see on the road, that would be appropriate.
My point wasn't that private individuals should have the weaponry to stand up to the army. Personally, I am conflicted on that argument. I am anti-authoritarian, but some people I wouldn't trust with nerf gun.
My main point was that the correct way to restrict weapons is to change the second amendment, not pretend it doesn't exist.
As an outsider reading it, I would say that the second amendment reads pretty clearly that the right to keep and carry weapons cannot be restricted.
Any law in the USA that purports to control weapons should be unconstitutional.
Arguing ethics, morals, need, danger or anything else in regards to weapons is (or should be) irrelevent.
If you don't like that situation you should work to get the second amendment changed, not work to undermine the constitution.
America has, in the past, been an example of freedom and rule of law that has inspired many people. It would be a tragedy if you were to undermine your rule of law and slide into becoming a police state by subverting your constitution.
If you truly believe that the situation and weapons have evolved to the point where that amendment is no longer needed, or needs to be changed, then the constitution contains methods for amending itself.
Please don't throw away the rule of law.
That's really just a far-future story, with a lot of relatavistic travel. What people are complaining about is any serious story with a grandfather paradox. They are logically incoherent.
You can play it for comedy, eg one of the better time travel scenes is in the Bill and Ted movie where they and the bad guy keep going back to trump each other's move.
But seriously, there are only two possibilities for time travel.
(1) The universe is fully deteministic in which case the time-travel already occurred and the travel will change nothing, or
(2) alternate universe "time-lines" in which case whatever horrible thing you are trying to change still occurred in the original universe and you have just created a copy. Nobody ever deals with that.
A moron indeed. You need to be a malicious arsehole to point one at a plane, but how dumb do you have to be to point it at a Police helicopter!
I don't think any robots at all will be involved.
"Directors" are going to morph into a new job where they sit at a screen and direct virtual actors. Computer generated SFX and location shots will be there instantly.
The vision a director will require will change, more emphasis on telling a good story, less on the ability to visualize based on incomplete scenes.
Also, continuity will be easy, no cost to switch scenes will mean just working through the script linearly. The computer will remember everything.
No need for the ability to massage the egos of prima-donnas or deal with the unions. Massive cost reductions all round.
The vision of the movie industry in the future is a few guys in a room with a big screen, directing a computer.
Movies will still vary just as wildly in quality. You are going to get individuals who save up, rent a "studio" and produce something equal to "The Room".
You are also going to get incredible movies, made by obsessed individuals who buy the equipment and spent years making their vision come true.
And everything in between.
And almost all of it will be on the net.
Have you watched the improvement in CGI over the last few years? I would argue that it won't be more than another decade or two at the longest and we will be getting new movies starring the best actors of the last hundred years.
And about a week after that, incredibly talented actors you've never heard of who don't actually exist.
At the moment, the uncanny vally limits this, but I expect them to cross it fairly soon. And then a whole lot of entertainment jobs go west.
Load the script into the computer, interact with the narrow AI for a while "directing" it and then come back the next morning to a fully rendered, indistinguishable from live, completed movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/774%E2%80%93775_radiation_burst
The part about witness accounts to a red cross like image in the sky, meaning someone may have actually seen the event...
We'd have to treat that as hearsay as no one around in 774 would be updating wikipedia.
Well of course not. NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH !!
Yes, it explains our stupidity too:
Study Claims Human Intelligence Peaked Two To Six Millennia Ago
I tried to read it but it was too complicated for me.
Interesting. But I was referring to the Sex Party name. The Pirate Party had more history and reasons to keep the name. The Sex Party often gets written off as a bunch of perverts without even looking at their policies.
Also the point of capturing the attention of apathetic voters has slightly less relevance in Aus, where we have compulsory voting (approx 97% turnout).
You only have to be less repulsive than the other parties, you don't have to actually campaign to get the voters out.
It's very easy to make it self-enforce. Only recognize copyright on software that has its source code in escrow. Similar to the old USA system of registering copyright.
I think they picked a silly name that costs them votes, but most of the Sex Party policies are actually pretty good. Better than the LibLabs anyway.
Ethically
You can keep a secret if you want to. But if you go down to the pub and get drunk enough to tell someone that your bag of loot is under the second floorboard in the spare room then you have no rights over that person.
You can prevent them from entering your house and lifting floorboards but you cannot cut out the piece of their brain that remembers what you said. You cannot even prevent them from telling other people.
Do you really not understand the ethical difference between not revealing information you know and imposing force on someone else to control information that they know?
Legally
Copyright is the time-limited sole right to make copies granted by the government. It is not the ownership of information.
Not that I'm advocating this, mind. But there are many pirates who honestly believe that current copyright law is unjust, and rather than stand up, be counted, and take the rap, they choose to just ignore the law in private.
Given that the copyright cartels have lobbied to the point where standing up and being counted equals fuck up your entire life for ever, I can't say I blame them.
An arrest for standing up for civil rights would practically be a badge of honour in most places. A million dollar fine and 35 years in prison for copying some songs, not so much.
Your post assumes the premise that you can own information. This is incorrect.
You can own a physical item that embodies a copy of information and, under current law, you can have the exclusive right to distribute some information, but you cannot own the information itself.
Nasty algae blooms seem like they should be fairly easy to avoid. Take it slow with the first iron additions, measure the response and calibrate from there.
A major looming problem that doesn't get enough attention (imho) is the impending collapse of wild ocean fisheries. Realistically there is no way to stop the current over-fishing in international waters, and giving the eco-system a boost seems the best way to mitigate the damage.
Pretty soon the word "racism" will be devoid of all meaning, due to being constantly diluted and trivialized by constantly being used where it does not apply.
What makes you think we haven't actually gotten there already?
That's a pretty racist remark.
Just curious, but why is the "add iron oxide to the oceans" a bad plan?
Large areas of ocean are basically lifeless deserts due to a lack of iron.