We are talking about TEXTING while driving. That requires not just your hand and your mind but your eyes too. How do you drive a car when you can't see the road?
Apple seems to be really random about testing submissions, on one hand you get rejected for superficial crap, on the other they allow that infamous "Pokemon Yellow" thing to go up, a "game" that consists of a title screen and just crashes if you do anything. It's sold for money and obviously infringing upon a well known set of copyrights and trademarks. That's so stupid they should be sued for letting it on the store.
MBTs these days carry flechette rounds that contain about a thousand pellets and fit into the 125mm main gun. There are also kinetic penetrator missiles if you aren't going for a simple kinetic penetrator "bullet". Of course against a lightly armored foe you're better off with explosive fragmentation rounds like flak.
I think a box with wedge-shaped front armor is more likely. Angling the armor allows it to deflect some otherwise penetrating projectiles. Think of an assault gun with thrusters instead of threads. Or maybe an upsized tank turret with engines on the backside (wouldn't want something this vulnerable in the front armor section).
I think Elite's Cobra may actually be a viable design.
How about recoilless weapons? Those vent their gases out the back of the weapon so the launcher doesn't experience much recoil while anyone standing behind him gets fried. Examples include man-carried anti-tank weapons (most of which are recoilless weapons, not rocket launchers).
Alternatively you could build your kinetic launcher in a line with a thruster and fire the thruster whenever you fire the launcher to provide a counterforce. You'll have a limited rate of fire if you re-aim your weapon after every shot but at least you'll not be flying backwards.
I assume the idea is that the enemy population is separated from yours by the void of space so you'd need to cross space to reach them. Obviously the drones are trying to get to the enemy population while the enemy drones will intercept them and go for your population.
Yes, not going to happen any time soon but this is a thought exercise.
I think a modern point defense is already smart enough to automatically engage targets that don't give the proper IFF response. Couple that with some avoidance scripts and you got enough to have a combat drone, the large scale stuff can handle a few seconds of lag.
That paint chip has a very different velocity than the shuttle, the space equivalent of a head-on collision. To have the same effect you need to accelerate towards your enemy and have your whole craft move at a high speed towards them so your bullets are just as fast. Guns alone will only apply a few hundred meters per second to your projectile, not doing much more than a point blank shot on Earth does.
However that acceleration will go both ways, your opponent can use your speed against you by dropping a few bags of sand into space and then accelerating away from you, leaving you with the higher energy impacts if you decide to keep going towards him. And if you have enough acceleration force to turn around completely before getting too close to your enemy then you can accelerate in any direction and dodge such a predictable cloud of high speed projectiles so the whole attack is pointless. You're basically using your main engines to accelerate your projectiles. You'll probably want to use guns instead but getting a gun that can produce velocities that several minutes of acceleration do will be tough and cause a lot of recoil.
I don't think debris will be a problem in combat. You'll want to keep your own craft pretty far from each other (you can spread them several kilometers apart easily) and they'd likely not be flying towards each other so debris would both be too sparse to cause a likely hit and not very fast relative to your other vessels so the impact wouldn't be very dangerous even with fairly light armor.
Depends on what a "capital ship" is. A space battle tank, sure. Something that's basically a big block of metal with a gun. Anything really large probably won't be able to have total armor coverage so it'd be vulnerable to shrapnel spreaders or regular HE munitions just like smaller drones. I don't think those would be more than mobile resupply and maintenance bases though (i.e. carriers) so they'd be kept outside of the battle. No reason to build big when you can build small and take fewer bullets that way.
I disagree on the antimatter, you need to put enormous amounts of power into that to produce it and then keep it stable somewhere. Chemical or nuclear energy storage is much simpler and cheaper because it's solid matter.
To dodge a laser you need to alter your trajectory enough that none of your vessel's body is where it would be without acceleration after the transmission time. Also you need to alter your acceleration vector often enough that you aren't predictable enough and you assume that lasers cannot be fired often enough that an enemy could just saturate the area around you with shots to get some hits in.
Lasers have the massive advantage of lacking recoil, using kinetics will shake your craft around and likely spread your shots more than you'd want them to for proper target saturation. Their slower movement also means that you'll need even more shots at.6 lightseconds (that's 180 million meters!) to land a significant number of hits and you'll need to scale down their individual power accordingly. I don't think you'll be able to use kinetics past a few kilometers of distance and I don't think you'll be able to get them to 120 km/s (actio = reactio, remember). Hell, the recoil from firing those bullets would be enough to kill any human crew on the vessel and even then your shots take half an hour to cross the.6 lightseconds that you put on the laser fight.
If you can build a laser with enough power, focal distance and cooling to do significant damage at.6 lightseconds you're going to mop the floor with anyone attempting to use kinetics at that range.
They got tricks to get around that. E.g. the pharma co says it's doing a study on the effects of drug X and they're offering the doctor money to take part which of course involves prescribing the "studied" drug.
Your right to free speech is limited by applicable laws and treaties. Privacy has a higher priority so it's getting the laws in its favor. Since privacy serves the most important right (dignity) it's much more important than speech.
Doesn't matter, we're talking about Europe where incitement and hate speech are banned and the freedom of expression (note: NOT freedom of speech) has certain limitations. In the EU the freedom of expression has a significantly lower priority than the freedom of speech has in the US.
For example there is one group of people who the rest of use want to know about before we interact with them, psychopaths. Once the pattern of behaviour has been established crimes against people, do they have the right to be able to publicly hide or do we have the right to protect ourselves from them, which we can only do if we have foreknowledge of who they 'really' are.
Exceptions like that should only be created by court decisions on specific individuals. Psychopaths are usually harmless and the insane have a bad rep mostly because of fiction depicting them as monsters. Real insane people are mostly harmless to other people, most are too busy with their sickness to do anything bad.
The minister of justice in Germany is a liberal (I believe the US term for the stance is Libertarian) so I'm not sure whether she's siding with corporate or public interests. She's been a major stumbling stone for various anti-freedom legislation before (e.g. anti-terror laws) so I could realistically see her oppose ACTA out of her own volition if it's really a problem.
Of course I have no idea what prompted that change in stance from the govt, on one hand there was public opposition to ACTA, on the other it's not like the FDP has anything to lose by screwing the population over (their poll scores are at rock bottom, the pirate party took like 75% of their voters away).
Zynga produces free-to-play AKA pay-to-do-anything-else games. They rely on feedback through social media and incentivize people to advertise to each other in order to get ahead (e.g. spamming your friends with what amounts to advertising for the game). They don't care about copies being available because their games propagate through peer pressure and stick through basic conditioning. As long as they can brute force their way to a critical mass of players (e.g. through extensive advertising campaigns) the feedback mechanisms ensure that their games rake in tons of money.
Tiny Tower is a game in the same "genre" but got lauded for being user friendly (i.e. sacrificing some profit opportunities for being nicer to people). It has no big marketing budget so its success comes down to its own strengths and a crapton of luck. Now Zynga is swooping in and trying to steal away TT's userbase by brute force (i.e. spending money) after failing to simply buy the developer out. People are upset because large piles of money are used to make the situation worse for society as a whole (by replacing a user-friendly game with a more exploitative one and moving income from the innovators who improved society to a parasite that refuses to improve society).
Copyright has very little to do with it, these games already operate on a software-as-a-service model.
Slashdot Mirror
Quit blaming the psychopaths, being an asshole is not a medical condition.
So how do you make that detect that you're in a train?
We are talking about TEXTING while driving. That requires not just your hand and your mind but your eyes too. How do you drive a car when you can't see the road?
Apple seems to be really random about testing submissions, on one hand you get rejected for superficial crap, on the other they allow that infamous "Pokemon Yellow" thing to go up, a "game" that consists of a title screen and just crashes if you do anything. It's sold for money and obviously infringing upon a well known set of copyrights and trademarks. That's so stupid they should be sued for letting it on the store.
Yes, also with shielding against electromagnetic interference. The target demographic for these things is "people who know jack shit about physics".
AKA flechette rounds and missiles?
MBTs these days carry flechette rounds that contain about a thousand pellets and fit into the 125mm main gun. There are also kinetic penetrator missiles if you aren't going for a simple kinetic penetrator "bullet". Of course against a lightly armored foe you're better off with explosive fragmentation rounds like flak.
Good luck with that, keeping your front at 3 kelvin and venting all the heat on the back.
I think a box with wedge-shaped front armor is more likely. Angling the armor allows it to deflect some otherwise penetrating projectiles. Think of an assault gun with thrusters instead of threads. Or maybe an upsized tank turret with engines on the backside (wouldn't want something this vulnerable in the front armor section).
I think Elite's Cobra may actually be a viable design.
How about recoilless weapons? Those vent their gases out the back of the weapon so the launcher doesn't experience much recoil while anyone standing behind him gets fried. Examples include man-carried anti-tank weapons (most of which are recoilless weapons, not rocket launchers).
Alternatively you could build your kinetic launcher in a line with a thruster and fire the thruster whenever you fire the launcher to provide a counterforce. You'll have a limited rate of fire if you re-aim your weapon after every shot but at least you'll not be flying backwards.
I assume the idea is that the enemy population is separated from yours by the void of space so you'd need to cross space to reach them. Obviously the drones are trying to get to the enemy population while the enemy drones will intercept them and go for your population.
Yes, not going to happen any time soon but this is a thought exercise.
I think a modern point defense is already smart enough to automatically engage targets that don't give the proper IFF response. Couple that with some avoidance scripts and you got enough to have a combat drone, the large scale stuff can handle a few seconds of lag.
That paint chip has a very different velocity than the shuttle, the space equivalent of a head-on collision. To have the same effect you need to accelerate towards your enemy and have your whole craft move at a high speed towards them so your bullets are just as fast. Guns alone will only apply a few hundred meters per second to your projectile, not doing much more than a point blank shot on Earth does.
However that acceleration will go both ways, your opponent can use your speed against you by dropping a few bags of sand into space and then accelerating away from you, leaving you with the higher energy impacts if you decide to keep going towards him. And if you have enough acceleration force to turn around completely before getting too close to your enemy then you can accelerate in any direction and dodge such a predictable cloud of high speed projectiles so the whole attack is pointless. You're basically using your main engines to accelerate your projectiles. You'll probably want to use guns instead but getting a gun that can produce velocities that several minutes of acceleration do will be tough and cause a lot of recoil.
I don't think debris will be a problem in combat. You'll want to keep your own craft pretty far from each other (you can spread them several kilometers apart easily) and they'd likely not be flying towards each other so debris would both be too sparse to cause a likely hit and not very fast relative to your other vessels so the impact wouldn't be very dangerous even with fairly light armor.
Depends on what a "capital ship" is. A space battle tank, sure. Something that's basically a big block of metal with a gun. Anything really large probably won't be able to have total armor coverage so it'd be vulnerable to shrapnel spreaders or regular HE munitions just like smaller drones. I don't think those would be more than mobile resupply and maintenance bases though (i.e. carriers) so they'd be kept outside of the battle. No reason to build big when you can build small and take fewer bullets that way.
I disagree on the antimatter, you need to put enormous amounts of power into that to produce it and then keep it stable somewhere. Chemical or nuclear energy storage is much simpler and cheaper because it's solid matter.
To dodge a laser you need to alter your trajectory enough that none of your vessel's body is where it would be without acceleration after the transmission time. Also you need to alter your acceleration vector often enough that you aren't predictable enough and you assume that lasers cannot be fired often enough that an enemy could just saturate the area around you with shots to get some hits in.
Lasers have the massive advantage of lacking recoil, using kinetics will shake your craft around and likely spread your shots more than you'd want them to for proper target saturation. Their slower movement also means that you'll need even more shots at .6 lightseconds (that's 180 million meters!) to land a significant number of hits and you'll need to scale down their individual power accordingly. I don't think you'll be able to use kinetics past a few kilometers of distance and I don't think you'll be able to get them to 120 km/s (actio = reactio, remember). Hell, the recoil from firing those bullets would be enough to kill any human crew on the vessel and even then your shots take half an hour to cross the .6 lightseconds that you put on the laser fight.
If you can build a laser with enough power, focal distance and cooling to do significant damage at .6 lightseconds you're going to mop the floor with anyone attempting to use kinetics at that range.
They got tricks to get around that. E.g. the pharma co says it's doing a study on the effects of drug X and they're offering the doctor money to take part which of course involves prescribing the "studied" drug.
Your right to free speech is limited by applicable laws and treaties. Privacy has a higher priority so it's getting the laws in its favor. Since privacy serves the most important right (dignity) it's much more important than speech.
Welcome to Earth. Dominant species: Homo Sapiens Sapiens. We love seeing others suffer.
Doesn't matter, we're talking about Europe where incitement and hate speech are banned and the freedom of expression (note: NOT freedom of speech) has certain limitations. In the EU the freedom of expression has a significantly lower priority than the freedom of speech has in the US.
Exceptions like that should only be created by court decisions on specific individuals. Psychopaths are usually harmless and the insane have a bad rep mostly because of fiction depicting them as monsters. Real insane people are mostly harmless to other people, most are too busy with their sickness to do anything bad.
A variety known for being pretty (thus easy to sell) but quite tasteless.
The minister of justice in Germany is a liberal (I believe the US term for the stance is Libertarian) so I'm not sure whether she's siding with corporate or public interests. She's been a major stumbling stone for various anti-freedom legislation before (e.g. anti-terror laws) so I could realistically see her oppose ACTA out of her own volition if it's really a problem.
Of course I have no idea what prompted that change in stance from the govt, on one hand there was public opposition to ACTA, on the other it's not like the FDP has anything to lose by screwing the population over (their poll scores are at rock bottom, the pirate party took like 75% of their voters away).
I wonder what became of Notch's plan to fund Psychonauts 2.
Zynga produces free-to-play AKA pay-to-do-anything-else games. They rely on feedback through social media and incentivize people to advertise to each other in order to get ahead (e.g. spamming your friends with what amounts to advertising for the game). They don't care about copies being available because their games propagate through peer pressure and stick through basic conditioning. As long as they can brute force their way to a critical mass of players (e.g. through extensive advertising campaigns) the feedback mechanisms ensure that their games rake in tons of money.
Tiny Tower is a game in the same "genre" but got lauded for being user friendly (i.e. sacrificing some profit opportunities for being nicer to people). It has no big marketing budget so its success comes down to its own strengths and a crapton of luck. Now Zynga is swooping in and trying to steal away TT's userbase by brute force (i.e. spending money) after failing to simply buy the developer out. People are upset because large piles of money are used to make the situation worse for society as a whole (by replacing a user-friendly game with a more exploitative one and moving income from the innovators who improved society to a parasite that refuses to improve society).
Copyright has very little to do with it, these games already operate on a software-as-a-service model.