.... a magnetic track that circles around the moon designed to launch probes and non-manned ojects at hyper-velocities because there is no atmosphere. I believe I calculated that the maximum speed you could send manned spacecraft on such a track is only about 4km/s which would have a 9G "upward" force as you circled around the moon. 1,750km radius and using the centripetal acceleration formula of acceleration = (velocity^2)/radius ==> (4000m/s^2)/175,000m = 91.43 m/s^2. Unless I made some kind of huge error, that's just over 9G and the tolerance of humans with special equipment to maintain bloodflow to the brain.
Unless it's far easier to get this kind of velocity or greater with a space elevator. I believe that at 73,600km which is twice as high as geosynchronous orbit, you could only get just about 1.8km/s of velocity if you were stopped at the end of the tether and just "let go".
You could always bring rocket fuel along to achieve even faster speeds as you "fly" away.
Exactly. I have an uncle that I refer to as "Drunken Uncle". He's 53, currently without a job and without a license as a result of a 2nd DUI offense. Thankfully, he has been the only victim of his drinking.... so far. He will NEVER be what people think of as "mature". Perhaps the study needs to be re-done to find out why some people, such as my uncle, never mature and what we can do about it. I figure society can only benefit from such a study, assuming there is actually something that can be done to correct the problem.
Good point...since it's only a red light, would it only pick up red wavelengths?
I should pick up anything that is NOT red and whatever dark colors it sees, other than light colors such as yellow or light-green, should show up as black. This is my current understanding of how it should work.
--
This sig would be invisible to your optical mouse scanner, if/. allowed colors.
Terrorists wouldn't bother with hijacking a space plane to do another 9/11 job for the following reasons:
1. Most of the mass of the space plane will be burned away just to reach its high altitude. And will most likely glide back to the Earth.
2. The space plane will, most likely, take off from some remote desert area (for now). The only way to reach any major landmarks would be to?... Turn on the rocket engine or take over the mothership.
3. I would expect that turning on the rocket engine at low altitutes means the space plane destroys itself from atmospheric friction (aka, burning up).
4. Even if terrorists did take over the mothership designed to drop the space plane once it reaches the critical altitude, I would hope either crew could jettison it so it couldn't be taken to any major landmark.
5. You could always install a remote control unit and have someone on the ground take over the flying in the event that someone should try to hijack the plane (until there are so many flights in one day that it becomes impossible).
Nope, regular non-stop flights are still the way to go, that is, if you can. I would think that the new world order is now, "Oh, did you say this is a hijacking?.... Let's roll everybody!" And great justice is dispensed to said terrorists by all the people on board. New world order demands that you have to assume you are dead the moment you get hijacked.
--
I dare the terrorists to hijack this sig.
Hi, could someone stop by my house and demo the device for me? I have a few pesky mice that I want to get rid of. I'm hoping it can detect the little varmints breathing too and not just humans. Oh yeah, and if you can grab that darn neighborhood skunk that nukes my house in the summer from time to time, I throw in a bonus. Thanks so much.
--
I type a different sig every time I comment on something. Here is my latest.
I agree. I think I can wait until the end of 2006 for HVD. Then we can get ALL the Paul Verhoven and Luc Besson "classics" on a single disc (and maybe more). Of course, when have you ever known any technology company that actually meets their proposed release dates? I bet HVD isn't made public at a reasonable price until 2007 or beyond.
--
This line is formatted in such a way that it looks like a sig. (I hope)
Did the author of the article like Double-Dog dare him, or something?
Perhaps a slight breach of etiquette occurred by skipping the triple dare and going right for the coup de grace of all dares, the sinister triple-dog-dare. But I can't be certain.
Call me when they have a version that can be installed in my PC to take the place of my DVD-R. I don't care if it's Blue Ray or DVD-HD as long as I can burn 25Gb worth of data per side and convert 6 or 7 DVD-Rs down to just ONE.
Or should I just wait for the 300Gb "holographic" discs instead?
Wrong! We discovered that the Q continuum killed the parents of Amanda Rogers (played by Olivia D'Abo) when she was just a baby by method of a tornado in the episode "True Q". In that episode Amanda finds out she is a Q and is given a choice by the being they call Q (played to the hilt by John de Lancie) to become a full fledged Q or never use her powers again, otherwise the Q continuum would have her killed too.
The only thing we really need technology wise is the ability to age gracefully as we get older and as cancer free as possible. There is nothing wrong with dying, but it's going to suck to get old. I'd rather look and feel like I do now in my 30s when I get to be 80 (assuming I make it that long). That would be great.
Also, if they truly have the ability to do gene and DNA fixes on living people, then if they make it expensive enough all the rich assholes will go for it. Sorry, but I don't want to live in a world where rich assholes never die.
OK, so what if he does have something that is 1,000 hotter than conventional fuels, but his explanation of it is totally bogus? Wouldn't it still be a huge breakthough? Couldn't we still use it to rival good ol' hydrocarbons or perhaps even nuclear power (given the fact that the meltdown potential makes everybody nervous)?
I've read the article and I also think this is another one of those "pie in the sky" stories, but what if he really does have something, just his explanation is totally wrong? I want to believe.
What if there is no living relative? I can't have children, so if I ever did something famous (highly doubtful, but you never know) and 500 years later they wanted to prove some DNA strand was really me, it would be almost impossible. Unless it's possible to do it through the decendants of my siblings, which would trace us all back to our parents. But even then, who is to say that those children won't be wiped out in some accident (heaven forbid), but you never know.
A family tree can die out and ours seems to be doing exactly that. Oh well, no big loss. I say good riddance to bad genetics.
Please. Robots won't revolt against humans, they'll be programmed to kill them to begin with. Sure, I don't expect to see Terminators for quite some time, but having small aircraft capable of flying around for days trying to find its target is a start. We will build these things under the guise of "military applications" and then someday, someone will decide to use a few for pure evil (think 9/11). I don't expect the human race to be annihilated by a robotic infestation (well, not for a long while anyway), but don't be surprised when robots start to replace suicide bombers.
What will most likely happen is that we will start to "kill" the robots first. Some people will be angry that robots have taken over certain jobs. Either that, or the jobs that these robots do will not be respected and human aggression will be taken out on them.
OK, so that would mean when we build biological androids to perform all of these functions, you are willing to say that it's life? I think not. We are most likely over 100 years away from being able to achieve such a goal, but someday we will have to answer that very question.
No really? How bad does it need to get before we finally take up arms against our own government? At the very least, we should all band together to do something. What kills me is that our founding fathers had the courage and the ability to revolt against such injustices, but we seem to just roll over and take it.
Do we write letters? Have a march in Washington? Stop paying our telephone bills as a country until this problem is solved (considering that's an area they are tapping)? Or do we really have to get nasty and take up arms and start a revolution where lots of people get killed? I certainly don't want to die or to kill people to maintain freedom in this country, but it seems to me that it's exactly where we are headed.
I've read articles that claim hurricanes actually help expend the energy built up in the oceans from the sun. If we were able to stop hurricanes from forming and could just keep them as Tropical storms, could the Earth gain too much energy over time? I don't really have the answer as it is just speculation, but maybe, just maybe, hurricanes happen for a good reason. So if we mess the weather too much, I expect bad things to happen far worse than just a few hurricanes every year.
I could have sworn this is ancient technology where they would use microwaves or a laser to do the same thing, but bounce it off glass. It seems to me a piece of glass would be far more superior to use than a wall. Of course, if you have double or triple paned glass, this could be a problem.
I can't stand this. What good would it do me to build a Google database when I can easily do the same thing with Oracle, MySQL, Postgres or even SQL Server? I can't think of any good reason other than to give them fodder to market crap to me that I don't even need or want.
When they finally come up with "the grid", I STILL won't even be a part of it. I'll gladly buy my own machine and my own hard drive and be in control of my own information.
I believe an article similar to this can be found in the September 2005 issue of Popular Science. Eventually, it will hit the Popular Science archives at http://www.popsci.com/popsci/archive/index.html
NASA might do this kind of rocket. I don't see it happening because of the existing Atlas rockets that are capable of heavy lifting already. Why re-engineer what Lockheed Martin has already succeeded in doing? Of course, we are talking about government here. If they really wanted to do it they should take their design to Lockheed Martin and say, "This is what we want to do and your existing rocket is the closest thing to it. Make it so within this gracious budget, because that's all your getting!" That would be too simple, wouldn't it?
From what I understand, the standard bandwidth for VHF television will be going away pretty soon to get re-allocated. If the FCC were to allow the bandwidth for just one television station to be used wirelessly, how much bandwidth would that be per channel? Does anyone know?
Could this be a possibility when people decide that 54G is still too slow to serve enough people at any given access point?
I agree somewhat, but we never will revolt in such large numbers until our life in this country is as bad as someone's life in a third world country. Besides, when we do revolt, we'll probably have to be creative, such as the killing of all lawyers and the destruction of all courthouses (as an example).
Of course, an easier solution would be to only vote for libritarians or anything non-democrat or non-republican. Or maybe we should demand term limitations. Two terms for the Senate, three for the House of Representatives and definitely no more than 8 years for the Supreme Court. That would help to put a stop to those people who think of government as a career opportunity rather than looking at it as a great responsibility for the betterment of humanity.
In any case, something definitely needs to be done about all this government nonsense. This is not the country I remember growing up in and I'd like to be able to be proud of it once again. Right now, I seethe with disgust and anger at the current administration. Once the G. W. Bush administration goes way I have a strong feeling we will be paying for the next 20 years.
We'll never run out of Carbon Dioxide. From what I understand the Oceans absorb more than what could be absorbed from the creation of Limestone. The thing I don't know is if the Carbon Dioxide is able to settle to the Ocean floor. I imagine Carbon itself does when marine life dies and becomes sediment. Then it can all be "recycled" back into magma chambers via subduction. That's a painfully slow process too, but eventually, the carbon dioxide comes back out during volcanic eruptions.
I think it's safe to say that the planet will find an equilibrium regardless of the human cost. Sure, it may cost millions and millions of lives as we either starve, freeze or roast to death. When that happens the environment should be able to recover faster than the humans that are left over can ruin it. Then the cycle can begin all over again.
Well, we are thinking about building a Space Elevator, so we could get rid of some of it that way. I mean, Carbon Nanotubes requires Carbon afterall. Then once we build a couple (cuz, you know one won't be enough), we can extract even more Carbon from the Oceans and send it out into space.
Then we could mine Iron asteroids and use the Carbon we sent from Earth to make steel. It could happen....
Slashdot Mirror
.... a magnetic track that circles around the moon designed to launch probes and non-manned ojects at hyper-velocities because there is no atmosphere. I believe I calculated that the maximum speed you could send manned spacecraft on such a track is only about 4km/s which would have a 9G "upward" force as you circled around the moon. 1,750km radius and using the centripetal acceleration formula of acceleration = (velocity^2)/radius ==> (4000m/s^2)/175,000m = 91.43 m/s^2. Unless I made some kind of huge error, that's just over 9G and the tolerance of humans with special equipment to maintain bloodflow to the brain.
Unless it's far easier to get this kind of velocity or greater with a space elevator. I believe that at 73,600km which is twice as high as geosynchronous orbit, you could only get just about 1.8km/s of velocity if you were stopped at the end of the tether and just "let go".
You could always bring rocket fuel along to achieve even faster speeds as you "fly" away.
Exactly. I have an uncle that I refer to as "Drunken Uncle". He's 53, currently without a job and without a license as a result of a 2nd DUI offense. Thankfully, he has been the only victim of his drinking.... so far. He will NEVER be what people think of as "mature". Perhaps the study needs to be re-done to find out why some people, such as my uncle, never mature and what we can do about it. I figure society can only benefit from such a study, assuming there is actually something that can be done to correct the problem.
Good point...since it's only a red light, would it only pick up red wavelengths?
/. allowed colors.
I should pick up anything that is NOT red and whatever dark colors it sees, other than light colors such as yellow or light-green, should show up as black. This is my current understanding of how it should work.
--
This sig would be invisible to your optical mouse scanner, if
Terrorists wouldn't bother with hijacking a space plane to do another 9/11 job for the following reasons:
1. Most of the mass of the space plane will be burned away just to reach its high altitude. And will most likely glide back to the Earth.
2. The space plane will, most likely, take off from some remote desert area (for now). The only way to reach any major landmarks would be to?... Turn on the rocket engine or take over the mothership.
3. I would expect that turning on the rocket engine at low altitutes means the space plane destroys itself from atmospheric friction (aka, burning up).
4. Even if terrorists did take over the mothership designed to drop the space plane once it reaches the critical altitude, I would hope either crew could jettison it so it couldn't be taken to any major landmark.
5. You could always install a remote control unit and have someone on the ground take over the flying in the event that someone should try to hijack the plane (until there are so many flights in one day that it becomes impossible).
Nope, regular non-stop flights are still the way to go, that is, if you can. I would think that the new world order is now, "Oh, did you say this is a hijacking?.... Let's roll everybody!" And great justice is dispensed to said terrorists by all the people on board. New world order demands that you have to assume you are dead the moment you get hijacked.
--
I dare the terrorists to hijack this sig.
Hi, could someone stop by my house and demo the device for me? I have a few pesky mice that I want to get rid of. I'm hoping it can detect the little varmints breathing too and not just humans. Oh yeah, and if you can grab that darn neighborhood skunk that nukes my house in the summer from time to time, I throw in a bonus. Thanks so much.
--
I type a different sig every time I comment on something. Here is my latest.
I agree. I think I can wait until the end of 2006 for HVD. Then we can get ALL the Paul Verhoven and Luc Besson "classics" on a single disc (and maybe more). Of course, when have you ever known any technology company that actually meets their proposed release dates? I bet HVD isn't made public at a reasonable price until 2007 or beyond.
--
This line is formatted in such a way that it looks like a sig. (I hope)
Did the author of the article like Double-Dog dare him, or something?
Perhaps a slight breach of etiquette occurred by skipping the triple dare and going right for the coup de grace of all dares, the sinister triple-dog-dare. But I can't be certain.
Call me when they have a version that can be installed in my PC to take the place of my DVD-R. I don't care if it's Blue Ray or DVD-HD as long as I can burn 25Gb worth of data per side and convert 6 or 7 DVD-Rs down to just ONE.
Or should I just wait for the 300Gb "holographic" discs instead?
Yup, that's my reaction too. When I first saw it, I couldn't help thinking, "The Nets-a-What's-it? What's-a-Who's-it?" WTF!
Wrong! We discovered that the Q continuum killed the parents of Amanda Rogers (played by Olivia D'Abo) when she was just a baby by method of a tornado in the episode "True Q". In that episode Amanda finds out she is a Q and is given a choice by the being they call Q (played to the hilt by John de Lancie) to become a full fledged Q or never use her powers again, otherwise the Q continuum would have her killed too.
The only thing we really need technology wise is the ability to age gracefully as we get older and as cancer free as possible. There is nothing wrong with dying, but it's going to suck to get old. I'd rather look and feel like I do now in my 30s when I get to be 80 (assuming I make it that long). That would be great.
Also, if they truly have the ability to do gene and DNA fixes on living people, then if they make it expensive enough all the rich assholes will go for it. Sorry, but I don't want to live in a world where rich assholes never die.
OK, so what if he does have something that is 1,000 hotter than conventional fuels, but his explanation of it is totally bogus? Wouldn't it still be a huge breakthough? Couldn't we still use it to rival good ol' hydrocarbons or perhaps even nuclear power (given the fact that the meltdown potential makes everybody nervous)?
I've read the article and I also think this is another one of those "pie in the sky" stories, but what if he really does have something, just his explanation is totally wrong? I want to believe.
What if there is no living relative? I can't have children, so if I ever did something famous (highly doubtful, but you never know) and 500 years later they wanted to prove some DNA strand was really me, it would be almost impossible. Unless it's possible to do it through the decendants of my siblings, which would trace us all back to our parents. But even then, who is to say that those children won't be wiped out in some accident (heaven forbid), but you never know.
A family tree can die out and ours seems to be doing exactly that. Oh well, no big loss. I say good riddance to bad genetics.
Please. Robots won't revolt against humans, they'll be programmed to kill them to begin with. Sure, I don't expect to see Terminators for quite some time, but having small aircraft capable of flying around for days trying to find its target is a start. We will build these things under the guise of "military applications" and then someday, someone will decide to use a few for pure evil (think 9/11). I don't expect the human race to be annihilated by a robotic infestation (well, not for a long while anyway), but don't be surprised when robots start to replace suicide bombers.
What will most likely happen is that we will start to "kill" the robots first. Some people will be angry that robots have taken over certain jobs. Either that, or the jobs that these robots do will not be respected and human aggression will be taken out on them.
OK, so that would mean when we build biological androids to perform all of these functions, you are willing to say that it's life? I think not. We are most likely over 100 years away from being able to achieve such a goal, but someday we will have to answer that very question.
Oh cool. I've always wanted to know how Keebler Elfen Magic works. OK, not really. I'm just out for the cookies. Cooooookies.... Cooooookies....
No really? How bad does it need to get before we finally take up arms against our own government? At the very least, we should all band together to do something. What kills me is that our founding fathers had the courage and the ability to revolt against such injustices, but we seem to just roll over and take it.
Do we write letters? Have a march in Washington? Stop paying our telephone bills as a country until this problem is solved (considering that's an area they are tapping)? Or do we really have to get nasty and take up arms and start a revolution where lots of people get killed? I certainly don't want to die or to kill people to maintain freedom in this country, but it seems to me that it's exactly where we are headed.
I've read articles that claim hurricanes actually help expend the energy built up in the oceans from the sun. If we were able to stop hurricanes from forming and could just keep them as Tropical storms, could the Earth gain too much energy over time? I don't really have the answer as it is just speculation, but maybe, just maybe, hurricanes happen for a good reason. So if we mess the weather too much, I expect bad things to happen far worse than just a few hurricanes every year.
I could have sworn this is ancient technology where they would use microwaves or a laser to do the same thing, but bounce it off glass. It seems to me a piece of glass would be far more superior to use than a wall. Of course, if you have double or triple paned glass, this could be a problem.
I can't stand this. What good would it do me to build a Google database when I can easily do the same thing with Oracle, MySQL, Postgres or even SQL Server? I can't think of any good reason other than to give them fodder to market crap to me that I don't even need or want.
When they finally come up with "the grid", I STILL won't even be a part of it. I'll gladly buy my own machine and my own hard drive and be in control of my own information.
I believe an article similar to this can be found in the September 2005 issue of Popular Science. Eventually, it will hit the Popular Science archives at http://www.popsci.com/popsci/archive/index.html
NASA might do this kind of rocket. I don't see it happening because of the existing Atlas rockets that are capable of heavy lifting already. Why re-engineer what Lockheed Martin has already succeeded in doing? Of course, we are talking about government here. If they really wanted to do it they should take their design to Lockheed Martin and say, "This is what we want to do and your existing rocket is the closest thing to it. Make it so within this gracious budget, because that's all your getting!" That would be too simple, wouldn't it?
From what I understand, the standard bandwidth for VHF television will be going away pretty soon to get re-allocated. If the FCC were to allow the bandwidth for just one television station to be used wirelessly, how much bandwidth would that be per channel? Does anyone know?
Could this be a possibility when people decide that 54G is still too slow to serve enough people at any given access point?
I agree somewhat, but we never will revolt in such large numbers until our life in this country is as bad as someone's life in a third world country. Besides, when we do revolt, we'll probably have to be creative, such as the killing of all lawyers and the destruction of all courthouses (as an example).
Of course, an easier solution would be to only vote for libritarians or anything non-democrat or non-republican. Or maybe we should demand term limitations. Two terms for the Senate, three for the House of Representatives and definitely no more than 8 years for the Supreme Court. That would help to put a stop to those people who think of government as a career opportunity rather than looking at it as a great responsibility for the betterment of humanity.
In any case, something definitely needs to be done about all this government nonsense. This is not the country I remember growing up in and I'd like to be able to be proud of it once again. Right now, I seethe with disgust and anger at the current administration. Once the G. W. Bush administration goes way I have a strong feeling we will be paying for the next 20 years.
We'll never run out of Carbon Dioxide. From what I understand the Oceans absorb more than what could be absorbed from the creation of Limestone. The thing I don't know is if the Carbon Dioxide is able to settle to the Ocean floor. I imagine Carbon itself does when marine life dies and becomes sediment. Then it can all be "recycled" back into magma chambers via subduction. That's a painfully slow process too, but eventually, the carbon dioxide comes back out during volcanic eruptions.
I think it's safe to say that the planet will find an equilibrium regardless of the human cost. Sure, it may cost millions and millions of lives as we either starve, freeze or roast to death. When that happens the environment should be able to recover faster than the humans that are left over can ruin it. Then the cycle can begin all over again.
Well, we are thinking about building a Space Elevator, so we could get rid of some of it that way. I mean, Carbon Nanotubes requires Carbon afterall. Then once we build a couple (cuz, you know one won't be enough), we can extract even more Carbon from the Oceans and send it out into space.
Then we could mine Iron asteroids and use the Carbon we sent from Earth to make steel. It could happen....