It is a little more complexed then that. There are too many checks in the system to let that happen.
In theory, yes, but checks and balances seem to be a little out of fashion these days.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that somethign is likly to be clasified.
No, even a rocket scientist couldn't necessarily do it. Things are classified all the time, for all sorts of reasons that someone outside of a project might never even imagine. The vast majority of classified data is so dull and apparently meaningless that the average person would never be able to guess that there's anything special about it. In fact, even people with clearances and appropriate training can't be counted on to know that something is classified, which is part of the reason why classified material is always clearly marked, dispensed with appropriate warnings, and strictly handled in approved locations with approved procedures. Believe me: if somebody randomly picked a classified document and e-mailed it to you alongside a non-classified document from the same project, you would most likely have a very hard time telling which was which.
Inteligence programs like listening to international calls of terrorist is pretty easy. Doing stuff normal citizens cannot do is another hint that somethign might be classified like monitoring cell phones of terorist to gain insight into attacks. More importantly, Having a prison in a secrete location to protect guards from attacks and jail breaks is a ghood sign of it being classified.
Yes, some things you can guess just by looking at it that it is (or should be) classified. Do you really think this is the only type of information that's classified?
If it wasn't clasified, It can be verified by checking, If it is clasified, They will either be told it's clasified or denied its existance.
This is unlikely to be an effective means of determination. Think about it: if a government official receives a call from some random citizen saying "I just learned X [where X is classified information]. Is this true?", how are they likely to respond?
"That's classified. Where'd you hear that?"
"I can't comment on that."
Now, if that same official gets a call saying "I just learned X [where X isn't classified, but is something the official doesn't want to discuss]", how likely are they to say "I can't comment on that"? Now how is the person asking the question going to distinguish between the first case and the second case?
Dealing with officially classified data is an extraordinarily sticky issue, for a wide variety of reasons. If any ordinary citizen is subject to the same penalties as people who are specifically trained to deal with these issues, then people can easily get themselves into trouble completely by accident, even if there's no malicious intent on either side. Add to that the fact that in this situation the government has all the power, and you've given them a frightening weapon to use against political enemies. It's just too dangerous, even if you do still believe that checks and balances exist.
Anyways, this creates a very unstable situation, since the Administration can leak (I mean, "selectively declassify") information any old time they feel like it in order to make political points.
More disturbingly, if the federal government can prosecute any journalist who publishes leaked classified information, then political enemies or annoyingly effective journalists can be eliminated easily: just arrange for a low-level official to "accidentally" leak classified information to them, and neglect to mention that the information is classified. They print the story, you throw them in jail. Problem solved.
There's a reason that, under current law, prosecution for releasing classified information only applies to those who have signed waivers and undergone training. They are expected to know what's for public consumption and what isn't, and they have been appropriately warned of the consequences of releasing the wrong information. This is an unreasonable burden to place on uncleared people.
Also, the lowered gravity and nearly-nonexistent atmosphere means that a moonsuit from the 60s still works out well enough.
Not quite. The Apollo EV suits worked fine for the short duration they were needed, but their seals were severely degraded by moon dust, which turned out to be far more corrosive than anyone anticipated. They wouldn't be any good for extended usage.
I take exception to this. I see a lot of people claiming he's a good actor. I've seen a lot of reviews saying the same thing. One of his "best" performances was supposedly in Life as a House.
Watch it sometime. Christensen is wooden, boring, unsympathetic, and perpetually whiny. In short, he plays his Anakin character TO THE TEE, sans Star Wars dress-up.
I did see it, actually, and I quite liked his performance.
But it's a matter of taste; I understand what you're saying. My real point is that Lucas can't even coax reasonably human performances out of well-established, truly talented actors (like, say, Liam Neeson). The man simply should not be directing movies. Let him work behind the scenes doing what he does do well and set his ego aside when it comes to directing.
First appearance of the wooden teen-aged brat who played older Anikin
Don't be so hard on him. Hayden Christensen is actually a good actor. As are Natalie Portman, Samuel Jackson, Ewan MacGregor, Liam Neeson and Jimmy Smits. But their performances in the Star Wars prequels all uniformly sucked. Only one person can ultimately be blamed for that.
Thanks for the suggestion. I was thinking about becoming naive, but on further reflection I think I'll avoid it.
Your "corrective mechanism" works in both directions.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. The system certainly has its flaws, and I completely agree with the sentiment that Wikipedia should be used as a rough guideline, supplemented by multiple other sources, rather than a definitive source. Probably its biggest weakness is that, like all "democratic" systems, it is subject to the whims of mob rule. So, for example, if Wikipedia were limited to the state of Alabama you wouldn't want to use it as a source of information on evolutionary theory. But the one thing that it is very robust against is a small minority with an agenda trying to dominate an issue -- which is exactly what this was about.
All this means is that those who are looking to manipulate Wiki for their own ends will learn how to hide their IP address behind proxies or whatever and obfuscate their connections to the interested parties in question.
In which case we wouldn't have any definitive evidence telling us who was behind the revisions, but we would know that they happened and be able to easily correct them. Which is what really matters.
The only lesson learned here is the oldest lesson of all: don't get caught!
Which is irrelevant. Whether the culprit is caught or not, his attempts to wipe the public record are not likely to get anywhere.
What law? This is just how Wikipedia operates. It's what the founders wanted -- a page editable by anyone.
And it's worth noting that this story, and the controversy surrounding it, can be seen as part of the corrective mechanism of such a site. Sure, any public figure can modify a Wikipedia page to distort the truth in their favor (or any non-public figure can modify a page to slander someone else), but when the transgression is serious enough, someone points it out, the story becomes public, and then everyone knows what they're up to. I think we can all agree that these particular attempts to rewrite history have blown up spectacularly in the perpetrators' faces.
I think that should be considered in all of the debates raging right now about the validity of Wikipedia as a source of information.
I don't think you guys are being fair to the OP. Being in a job you need but don't like can be very draining in time, physical energy, emotional energy, etc.
True. Now try doing it while you have a family to support.
Whatever the cost in time or physical/emotional energy, he's better off paying it now (and living on less money for a while if necessary) than finding himself 10-15 years older, in the same position, but with a mortgage and 2 kids to feed. Believe me: if that happens, he'll look back and long for the obstacles he faces right now.
To the OP: you've clearly decided that you're unhappy and intend to do something about it. Good for you. Now take it another step and commit yourself to the decision, even if you know it's going to be rough at first. You may have to give up your job, or at least your position, for something that pays less but gives you more available time. But if you're confident in your abilities (and I get the feeling that you are), then you'll find a better situation. Good luck.
And since, it's most likely owned by the Russian mob, or someone who wouldn't stand a chance againt the Russian mob, do you really want to give the site your credit card number and personal identifying information??
The difference between us is I realize that both of us are rather fond of democracy; I (and other conservatives) just happen to realize Democracy takes some defending even if it means a few calls to known terrorists are tapped.
The trouble with your argument is, there is nothing within the existing legal framework to prevent "a few calls to known terrorists" from being tapped. That's what the court is for, and statistics clearly show that it very rarely turns down wiretap requests. Hard to believe that they'd suddenly start doing so for calls to "known terrorists" after the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history.
Someone who claims that someone who protects Democracy is "The Enemy" is I've found someone who has reach the point where there is no reasoning with them.
I agree. When (for example) someone refers to Civil Rights advocacy groups as "terror allies", or accuses government watchdog groups of providing aid and comfort to the enemy, they're pretty much beyond reason.
The response will probably be something like "I intend to move out of the country if things get worse, blah blah blah blah blah". I honestly think that would be best for you as you are not going to be happy with the way the country is swinging.
The sad thing is that you think you are. It may be great now, while someone you like is sitting in the Oval Office -- how do you think you'll feel if the current administration succeeds in their bid to greatly expand the power of the Executive Office and then Hillary Clinton becomes President in 2008?
And the number of people like me is growing, as witnessed by the 60% approval ratings for wiretapping actions that Bush enjoys.
Hmm. I suppose that's true if you define 60% as 52% and "approval" as "supporting impeachment of".
Yes, that's right - it's easier to get a southern baptist to accept gay people than it is to get a blowhard peace loving Democrat to accept that some times when foreign powers are actively trying to hurt U.S. interests that things need to get done.
Trouble with that is, there has never been a time in our entire history when some foreign power was not actively trying to hurt U.S. interests. There is absolutely no evidence to even remotely suggest that this overstepping of authority makes us any safer.
It truly is astonishing how little your side has bothered to think about its arguments. But I guess if you spend 5 years getting away with whatever you want, you tend to forget how to justify your actions.
But the constitution trumps FISA. FISA can't take powers away from the president that he is granted under the constitution.
And where in the Constitution is the President given authority to do what he's done?
And the "domestic spying" HAS caught at least one guy. Iyman Faris's plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge was discovered through monitoring his phone calls.
Perhaps so. Now why would this not have been possible within the existing legal framework of FISA?
I'm sure I'll hear the standard arguments about how speech can be regulated and I repudiate all of them. Crying fire in a theatre is private property
Crying "fire!" in a crowded public space (say, a city-run museum) has exactly the same effect, and the same potential legal consequences, as doing so in a privately-owned theater.
the Constitution protects nothing on private property
I don't know where you get this. I am still protected from unreasonable search and seizure while I'm on private property; I cannot be held against my will unless there is reasonable suspicion that I have committed a crime. For that matter, I have a legal right to free expression while I'm on private property. The owner of the property may choose to tell me to leave if he doesn't like what I have said, but that doesn't mean it was a crime for me to say it.
and the theatre owner is responsible for setting the standards of speech.
Not being allowed to yell "fire!" is about public safety, not standards of speech.
Telling someone how to make a bomb is also free expression/speech -- you're not making the bomb.
True (for the most part), but asking or telling someone to use that bomb is, in many cases, conspiracy to commit a crime and therefore not protected speech (is a Mafia boss committing a crime if he orders one of his underlings to kill a juror or witness?).
I agree that this is a case of overzealous prosecution, but your analogies really are not applicable.
Materials science advances more quickly nowadays than it did back in Ogg's day, and Ogg didn't even have a scientific method to explain why his raft floated ("It floats because wood is lighter than water! You can't make a raft out of metal!"). Simply because it won't happen tomorrow doesn't mean it won't happen in our lifetimes, especially since advances in materials towards making this device would have major reprocussions in other industries as well (e. g. I'm sure this would help spur superconductor research).
I didn't say that it wouldn't happen in our lifetimes. If this theory is correct, I could imagine that that might be possible. But the real obstacle has nothing to do with materials science (well, almost nothing) -- it's a matter of energy storage and conversion. If gravity can be manipulated, that will (of course) have great advantages for space travel. But it will also have one very big disadvantage: gravity is the weakest force in the universe. In fact, that is a vast understatement; gravity is a pathetically weak force. To understand just how weak it is, consider the fact that it takes the entire mass of the earth (and all of the relativistic energy associated with that mass) just to pull on me with a force of 200 pounds. Well, OK, more like 220. I like pastries.
But the point is, even if this works perfectly and we have a reliable way of converting energy directly into gravitational force (which is not at all a preposterous idea), then we'll still have the problem of requiring enormous quantities of energy to get any significant amount of force out of the process. That fact is unavoidable, unless someone wants to also claim that this technique can produce a perpetual motion machine. And getting compact, lightweight, powerful energy sources onto spacecraft has always been one of the biggest problems faced by engineers.
Just to give a more concrete example: let's say that this process can convert energy into gravitational force with the same efficiency that the universe does using matter. IOW, X amount of energy can create Y amount of force, where Y is equal to the gravitational force that would be produced by (X/c^2) amount of mass pulling on the object in question (i.e., what we would get if we converted our energy directly into matter). We want to use this tecnique to accelerate a 4,500 kg (~10,000 lbs. at 1G) spacecraft with 100 lbs (444 N) of force. This would require a gravitational field approximately 1/100 the strength of the earth's, which, therefore, would require an amount of energy equal to about 1/100 the mass-energy of the earth, or about 5 x 10^41 J! I don't think we have any launch-capable reactors that can do that quite yet.
Again, this is not to say that it can't be done, or even that it can't be done in our lifetime. I hope to hell that it can. But we should understand that proving the basic theory and the basic technique is only the first of many difficult steps.
The whole article is about the U.S. being interested in *testing* the theory. To do this, you build a big-ass torroid (6M) and get it spinning fast (> 700m/s) and then energize a big-ass magnetic field (>37 T) and measure to see if the effect occurs. The effect in this case measuring something like 3 newtons.
Those numbers are important, because they show that, even if this works, the gap between it and a functioning warp drive is pretty vast. Not that it won't be possible, of course, but saying "if this experiment works we'll have warp drives in a few years!" is like saying "If Og can make his raft float, we'll have aircraft carriers in a few years".
"Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension,"
Which dimension? X, Y, Z, or t? Because, you know, it already occupies those (and quite a few more, if you believe some versions of string theory) already, just by sitting there.
Sorry, but when I hear a phrase like "slip into another dimension", the first thing I think of is bad '50s sci-fi or hastily scribbled Star Trek technobabble. This is not scientifically meaningful terminology AFAIK.
Perhaps they mean it will slip into an alternate universe, or a domain of spacetime where the laws of physics are different -- but I hope that domain contains more than one dimension, or it probably won't be of much use.
...that any company (other than Apple) that names their product iAnything should have 15% iDeducted from their iStock price for being iUncreative. It was catchy when Apple started doing it (if they were even the first), but now its kind of "their thing" and it just sounds, well, stupid when other companies do it.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a little more complexed then that. There are too many checks in the system to let that happen.
In theory, yes, but checks and balances seem to be a little out of fashion these days.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that somethign is likly to be clasified.
No, even a rocket scientist couldn't necessarily do it. Things are classified all the time, for all sorts of reasons that someone outside of a project might never even imagine. The vast majority of classified data is so dull and apparently meaningless that the average person would never be able to guess that there's anything special about it. In fact, even people with clearances and appropriate training can't be counted on to know that something is classified, which is part of the reason why classified material is always clearly marked, dispensed with appropriate warnings, and strictly handled in approved locations with approved procedures. Believe me: if somebody randomly picked a classified document and e-mailed it to you alongside a non-classified document from the same project, you would most likely have a very hard time telling which was which.
Inteligence programs like listening to international calls of terrorist is pretty easy. Doing stuff normal citizens cannot do is another hint that somethign might be classified like monitoring cell phones of terorist to gain insight into attacks. More importantly, Having a prison in a secrete location to protect guards from attacks and jail breaks is a ghood sign of it being classified.
Yes, some things you can guess just by looking at it that it is (or should be) classified. Do you really think this is the only type of information that's classified?
If it wasn't clasified, It can be verified by checking, If it is clasified, They will either be told it's clasified or denied its existance.
This is unlikely to be an effective means of determination. Think about it: if a government official receives a call from some random citizen saying "I just learned X [where X is classified information]. Is this true?", how are they likely to respond?
Now, if that same official gets a call saying "I just learned X [where X isn't classified, but is something the official doesn't want to discuss]", how likely are they to say "I can't comment on that"? Now how is the person asking the question going to distinguish between the first case and the second case?
Dealing with officially classified data is an extraordinarily sticky issue, for a wide variety of reasons. If any ordinary citizen is subject to the same penalties as people who are specifically trained to deal with these issues, then people can easily get themselves into trouble completely by accident, even if there's no malicious intent on either side. Add to that the fact that in this situation the government has all the power, and you've given them a frightening weapon to use against political enemies. It's just too dangerous, even if you do still believe that checks and balances exist.
Anyways, this creates a very unstable situation, since the Administration can leak (I mean, "selectively declassify") information any old time they feel like it in order to make political points.
More disturbingly, if the federal government can prosecute any journalist who publishes leaked classified information, then political enemies or annoyingly effective journalists can be eliminated easily: just arrange for a low-level official to "accidentally" leak classified information to them, and neglect to mention that the information is classified. They print the story, you throw them in jail. Problem solved.
There's a reason that, under current law, prosecution for releasing classified information only applies to those who have signed waivers and undergone training. They are expected to know what's for public consumption and what isn't, and they have been appropriately warned of the consequences of releasing the wrong information. This is an unreasonable burden to place on uncleared people.
Also, the lowered gravity and nearly-nonexistent atmosphere means that a moonsuit from the 60s still works out well enough.
Not quite. The Apollo EV suits worked fine for the short duration they were needed, but their seals were severely degraded by moon dust, which turned out to be far more corrosive than anyone anticipated. They wouldn't be any good for extended usage.
I take exception to this. I see a lot of people claiming he's a good actor. I've seen a lot of reviews saying the same thing. One of his "best" performances was supposedly in Life as a House.
Watch it sometime. Christensen is wooden, boring, unsympathetic, and perpetually whiny. In short, he plays his Anakin character TO THE TEE, sans Star Wars dress-up.
I did see it, actually, and I quite liked his performance.
But it's a matter of taste; I understand what you're saying. My real point is that Lucas can't even coax reasonably human performances out of well-established, truly talented actors (like, say, Liam Neeson). The man simply should not be directing movies. Let him work behind the scenes doing what he does do well and set his ego aside when it comes to directing.
Captain, we've got something on sonar. Looks like a submarine.
First appearance of the wooden teen-aged brat who played older Anikin
Don't be so hard on him. Hayden Christensen is actually a good actor. As are Natalie Portman, Samuel Jackson, Ewan MacGregor, Liam Neeson and Jimmy Smits. But their performances in the Star Wars prequels all uniformly sucked. Only one person can ultimately be blamed for that.
I'm already ahead of the curve; I have faced the inevitable and sewn "Google" into the tag on my underwear.
So what will this new service be named. Noogle? Gnapster? Goopster?
Please don't ever again use the word "Goopster" in an article mentioning your underwear.
Don't be naive.
Thanks for the suggestion. I was thinking about becoming naive, but on further reflection I think I'll avoid it.
Your "corrective mechanism" works in both directions.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. The system certainly has its flaws, and I completely agree with the sentiment that Wikipedia should be used as a rough guideline, supplemented by multiple other sources, rather than a definitive source. Probably its biggest weakness is that, like all "democratic" systems, it is subject to the whims of mob rule. So, for example, if Wikipedia were limited to the state of Alabama you wouldn't want to use it as a source of information on evolutionary theory. But the one thing that it is very robust against is a small minority with an agenda trying to dominate an issue -- which is exactly what this was about.
All this means is that those who are looking to manipulate Wiki for their own ends will learn how to hide their IP address behind proxies or whatever and obfuscate their connections to the interested parties in question.
In which case we wouldn't have any definitive evidence telling us who was behind the revisions, but we would know that they happened and be able to easily correct them. Which is what really matters.
The only lesson learned here is the oldest lesson of all: don't get caught!
Which is irrelevant. Whether the culprit is caught or not, his attempts to wipe the public record are not likely to get anywhere.
What law? This is just how Wikipedia operates. It's what the founders wanted -- a page editable by anyone.
And it's worth noting that this story, and the controversy surrounding it, can be seen as part of the corrective mechanism of such a site. Sure, any public figure can modify a Wikipedia page to distort the truth in their favor (or any non-public figure can modify a page to slander someone else), but when the transgression is serious enough, someone points it out, the story becomes public, and then everyone knows what they're up to. I think we can all agree that these particular attempts to rewrite history have blown up spectacularly in the perpetrators' faces.
I think that should be considered in all of the debates raging right now about the validity of Wikipedia as a source of information.
I agree. We really need to coin a trendy new phrase to help us make fun of all those people who waste their time chasing trends.
We labelled the OpenOffice Writer icon as "Microsoft Word", for instance, and people didn't know the difference.
We need to talk.
--Sincerely,
Microsoft Legal Dept.
I don't think you guys are being fair to the OP. Being in a job you need but don't like can be very draining in time, physical energy, emotional energy, etc.
True. Now try doing it while you have a family to support.
Whatever the cost in time or physical/emotional energy, he's better off paying it now (and living on less money for a while if necessary) than finding himself 10-15 years older, in the same position, but with a mortgage and 2 kids to feed. Believe me: if that happens, he'll look back and long for the obstacles he faces right now.
To the OP: you've clearly decided that you're unhappy and intend to do something about it. Good for you. Now take it another step and commit yourself to the decision, even if you know it's going to be rough at first. You may have to give up your job, or at least your position, for something that pays less but gives you more available time. But if you're confident in your abilities (and I get the feeling that you are), then you'll find a better situation. Good luck.
And since, it's most likely owned by the Russian mob, or someone who wouldn't stand a chance againt the Russian mob, do you really want to give the site your credit card number and personal identifying information??
Relax. They use SSL encryption.
This is the guy who was going to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge with a cutting torch.
Well, at least we know that our government is prepared to protect us from Wail'i Khayoutti and his Al-Akmi terrorist network.
The difference between us is I realize that both of us are rather fond of democracy; I (and other conservatives) just happen to realize Democracy takes some defending even if it means a few calls to known terrorists are tapped.
The trouble with your argument is, there is nothing within the existing legal framework to prevent "a few calls to known terrorists" from being tapped. That's what the court is for, and statistics clearly show that it very rarely turns down wiretap requests. Hard to believe that they'd suddenly start doing so for calls to "known terrorists" after the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history.
Someone who claims that someone who protects Democracy is "The Enemy" is I've found someone who has reach the point where there is no reasoning with them.
I agree. When (for example) someone refers to Civil Rights advocacy groups as "terror allies", or accuses government watchdog groups of providing aid and comfort to the enemy, they're pretty much beyond reason.
The response will probably be something like "I intend to move out of the country if things get worse, blah blah blah blah blah". I honestly think that would be best for you as you are not going to be happy with the way the country is swinging.
The sad thing is that you think you are. It may be great now, while someone you like is sitting in the Oval Office -- how do you think you'll feel if the current administration succeeds in their bid to greatly expand the power of the Executive Office and then Hillary Clinton becomes President in 2008?
And the number of people like me is growing, as witnessed by the 60% approval ratings for wiretapping actions that Bush enjoys.
Hmm. I suppose that's true if you define 60% as 52% and "approval" as "supporting impeachment of".
Yes, that's right - it's easier to get a southern baptist to accept gay people than it is to get a blowhard peace loving Democrat to accept that some times when foreign powers are actively trying to hurt U.S. interests that things need to get done.
Trouble with that is, there has never been a time in our entire history when some foreign power was not actively trying to hurt U.S. interests. There is absolutely no evidence to even remotely suggest that this overstepping of authority makes us any safer.
It truly is astonishing how little your side has bothered to think about its arguments. But I guess if you spend 5 years getting away with whatever you want, you tend to forget how to justify your actions.
But the constitution trumps FISA. FISA can't take powers away from the president that he is granted under the constitution.
And where in the Constitution is the President given authority to do what he's done?
And the "domestic spying" HAS caught at least one guy. Iyman Faris's plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge was discovered through monitoring his phone calls.
Perhaps so. Now why would this not have been possible within the existing legal framework of FISA?
Never mind that! How many trees will I have to tap to power my server?
The real question is: how many acres of forest will be destroyed by the ensuing wildfire when you link your server to slashdot?
I know that excessive use of Wine usually makes me insecure.
I'm sure I'll hear the standard arguments about how speech can be regulated and I repudiate all of them. Crying fire in a theatre is private property
Crying "fire!" in a crowded public space (say, a city-run museum) has exactly the same effect, and the same potential legal consequences, as doing so in a privately-owned theater.
the Constitution protects nothing on private property
I don't know where you get this. I am still protected from unreasonable search and seizure while I'm on private property; I cannot be held against my will unless there is reasonable suspicion that I have committed a crime. For that matter, I have a legal right to free expression while I'm on private property. The owner of the property may choose to tell me to leave if he doesn't like what I have said, but that doesn't mean it was a crime for me to say it.
and the theatre owner is responsible for setting the standards of speech.
Not being allowed to yell "fire!" is about public safety, not standards of speech.
Telling someone how to make a bomb is also free expression/speech -- you're not making the bomb.
True (for the most part), but asking or telling someone to use that bomb is, in many cases, conspiracy to commit a crime and therefore not protected speech (is a Mafia boss committing a crime if he orders one of his underlings to kill a juror or witness?).
I agree that this is a case of overzealous prosecution, but your analogies really are not applicable.
Materials science advances more quickly nowadays than it did back in Ogg's day, and Ogg didn't even have a scientific method to explain why his raft floated ("It floats because wood is lighter than water! You can't make a raft out of metal!"). Simply because it won't happen tomorrow doesn't mean it won't happen in our lifetimes, especially since advances in materials towards making this device would have major reprocussions in other industries as well (e. g. I'm sure this would help spur superconductor research).
I didn't say that it wouldn't happen in our lifetimes. If this theory is correct, I could imagine that that might be possible. But the real obstacle has nothing to do with materials science (well, almost nothing) -- it's a matter of energy storage and conversion. If gravity can be manipulated, that will (of course) have great advantages for space travel. But it will also have one very big disadvantage: gravity is the weakest force in the universe. In fact, that is a vast understatement; gravity is a pathetically weak force. To understand just how weak it is, consider the fact that it takes the entire mass of the earth (and all of the relativistic energy associated with that mass) just to pull on me with a force of 200 pounds. Well, OK, more like 220. I like pastries.
But the point is, even if this works perfectly and we have a reliable way of converting energy directly into gravitational force (which is not at all a preposterous idea), then we'll still have the problem of requiring enormous quantities of energy to get any significant amount of force out of the process. That fact is unavoidable, unless someone wants to also claim that this technique can produce a perpetual motion machine. And getting compact, lightweight, powerful energy sources onto spacecraft has always been one of the biggest problems faced by engineers.
Just to give a more concrete example: let's say that this process can convert energy into gravitational force with the same efficiency that the universe does using matter. IOW, X amount of energy can create Y amount of force, where Y is equal to the gravitational force that would be produced by (X/c^2) amount of mass pulling on the object in question (i.e., what we would get if we converted our energy directly into matter). We want to use this tecnique to accelerate a 4,500 kg (~10,000 lbs. at 1G) spacecraft with 100 lbs (444 N) of force. This would require a gravitational field approximately 1/100 the strength of the earth's, which, therefore, would require an amount of energy equal to about 1/100 the mass-energy of the earth, or about 5 x 10^41 J! I don't think we have any launch-capable reactors that can do that quite yet.
Again, this is not to say that it can't be done, or even that it can't be done in our lifetime. I hope to hell that it can. But we should understand that proving the basic theory and the basic technique is only the first of many difficult steps.
But I am still hopeful.
The whole article is about the U.S. being interested in *testing* the theory. To do this, you build a big-ass torroid (6M) and get it spinning fast (> 700m/s) and then energize a big-ass magnetic field (>37 T) and measure to see if the effect occurs. The effect in this case measuring something like 3 newtons.
Those numbers are important, because they show that, even if this works, the gap between it and a functioning warp drive is pretty vast. Not that it won't be possible, of course, but saying "if this experiment works we'll have warp drives in a few years!" is like saying "If Og can make his raft float, we'll have aircraft carriers in a few years".
Or was it the other way around?
"Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension,"
Which dimension? X, Y, Z, or t? Because, you know, it already occupies those (and quite a few more, if you believe some versions of string theory) already, just by sitting there.
Sorry, but when I hear a phrase like "slip into another dimension", the first thing I think of is bad '50s sci-fi or hastily scribbled Star Trek technobabble. This is not scientifically meaningful terminology AFAIK.
Perhaps they mean it will slip into an alternate universe, or a domain of spacetime where the laws of physics are different -- but I hope that domain contains more than one dimension, or it probably won't be of much use.
I think it's very iNnovative and iNteresting.
I first read this headline as "Apple Designer Hounded By British Clown".