Technologically, this is entirely possible, with one exception -- we do not know how to make the mirrors which his colonies would be dependent on for food
How so? Making mirrors are not understood?
And the sat would only produce a little (at most thrice) more Earth-usable power for the Earth than Earth-based solar collectors with tracking motors.
It would produce more, I think. In space: 24-h days, no weather, no absorption by air, no vast areas of Earth real estate needed, zero-g means flimsier structures are possible etc. But a cable along the space elevator would probably be a better transmission system than microwaves.
Yawn. Dont be so Americocentric. FYI, I do not reside in the U.S. of A am are not subject to your laws.
isn't exactly the American way to get things done,
On the contrary, it is the American way. The American Revolution was very much illegal, according to the then current British laws, to which George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al were subject. All revolutions are illegal, by definition. That doesnt make them necessarily wrong.
Dont you presume to speak for me. Im not a pirate. I have never attacked any shipping. However, I do perform unauthorized copying from time to time. And I dont like Newspeak.
not to say that the RIAA is doing stuff fairly, but they are doing it legally.
So what? Until the 1860s it was perfectly legal to own slaves in many American states. Legal!=Right and Illegal!=Wrong.
i'll admit. i've bought 1 new cd in the part 5 months, while i've burned 200 high quality cds from mp3's with a bitrate for 192 or higher that I downloaded from Napster. I download the mp3s, burn the full cd's, then delete the mp3s to make room for more. I use amazon's recommendation system to pick out which cd I want next based on whether I like the one I just downloaded or not.
Cool for you. But if you truly like some of that music, you really should think about supporting that artist, no?
Don't tell me what we're doing is legal. It isn't, and shouldn't be. But I do it anyway because I love music but detest paying $18/cd
Has anyone else noticed this? Every time this subject is discussed on/. the people, who by their own admission copy a lot and never buy the CD, are people who readily say what they are doing is wrong and use the loathsome word "pirating"?
Have you no honor? Im not saying youll have to agree with all laws, or obey them for that matter if you disagree, but you should at least be man or woman enough to follow your own convictions. If you, as you say, think unauthorized copying is wrong, dont do it then. Pay those $18 or go without. At the very least, dont be a hypocrite!
Personally, I think it is an unalienable Right of any man, woman and child to copy any and all released information without any restriction. On the other hand, it is also our solemn Duty to support the artists that we like. I follow my ethics - I copy, and I support.
So a BIG tsunami could be created with just a modest amount of high explosives? And at a distance? The only way this could be done is for that small explosion to be placed at such a spot to create a secondary, much larger shock, which then creates the tsunami wave. Otherwise there is simply not enough energy. Also, the distance is crucial. A shock that creates a 20 m tsunami at 10 km from null will be only (at most) 1 dm high at 1000 km. If you set off the biggest hydrogen bomb there is (100 Mt) some kms below the sea you would get a substantial tsunami out to, say 1000 km, but coasts further away would hardly notice it. Only earthquakes and volcanic eruptions (and impacts) with energies far larger than the biggest nuke (100x - 1000x) produce tsunamis that are devastating across oceans. Of course lesser events, including nukes, can cause much destruction, albeit on a regional scale. There are two types of spots where you could, conceivably, produce substantial tsunamis with non-nukes. 1) Detonate in a submarine fault near the victim, precipitating an earthquake - and tsunami. Pro: Explosion signature may be cloaked by earthquake, avoiding suspicion of agression. Con: Unpredictable, level of stress in fault must be high to begin with. 2) Detonate in submarine scarp to create submarine landslide - and tsunami. Pro: Slopes are already unstable at many places. Con: Unpredictable, explosion signature harder to conceal. To sum it up, tsunamis could possibly be created using non-nuclear methods. They would however have to be effected relatively near the target, and are very unpredictable./Dervak
There is one good reason why most banks in this situation will not inform the authorities at all. Banks rely on public trust in them to earn their money. If they reported such a blackmail attempt to the police it would necessesarily become known by the public. The cost of this in terms of plummeting business (would you lend your money to a bank with that lax security?) would far exceed the $100000 or even $1000000 in ransom. So they pay up and hope it just will go away./Dervak
Slashdot Mirror
Technologically, this is entirely possible, with one exception -- we do not know how to make the mirrors which his colonies would be dependent on for food
How so? Making mirrors are not understood?
And the sat would only produce a little (at most thrice) more Earth-usable power for the Earth than Earth-based solar collectors with tracking motors.
It would produce more, I think. In space: 24-h days, no weather, no absorption by air, no vast areas of Earth real estate needed, zero-g means flimsier structures are possible etc. But a cable along the space elevator would probably be a better transmission system than microwaves.
/Dervak
Illegal == Wrong in the U.S. of A
Yawn. Dont be so Americocentric. FYI, I do not reside in the U.S. of A am are not subject to your laws.
isn't exactly the American way to get things done,
On the contrary, it is the American way. The American Revolution was very much illegal, according to the then current British laws, to which George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al were subject. All revolutions are illegal, by definition. That doesnt make them necessarily wrong.
/Dervak
we're all pirates and doing fairly illegal stuff
Dont you presume to speak for me. Im not a pirate. I have never attacked any shipping. However, I do perform unauthorized copying from time to time. And I dont like Newspeak.
not to say that the RIAA is doing stuff fairly, but they are doing it legally.
So what? Until the 1860s it was perfectly legal to own slaves in many American states. Legal!=Right and Illegal!=Wrong.
i'll admit. i've bought 1 new cd in the part 5 months, while i've burned 200 high quality cds from mp3's with a bitrate for 192 or higher that I downloaded from Napster. I download the mp3s, burn the full cd's, then delete the mp3s to make room for more. I use amazon's recommendation system to pick out which cd I want next based on whether I like the one I just downloaded or not.
Cool for you. But if you truly like some of that music, you really should think about supporting that artist, no?
Don't tell me what we're doing is legal. It isn't, and shouldn't be. But I do it anyway because I love music but detest paying $18/cd
Has anyone else noticed this? Every time this subject is discussed on /. the people, who by their own admission copy a lot and never buy the CD, are people who readily say what they are doing is wrong and use the loathsome word "pirating"?
Have you no honor? Im not saying youll have to agree with all laws, or obey them for that matter if you disagree, but you should at least be man or woman enough to follow your own convictions. If you, as you say, think unauthorized copying is wrong, dont do it then. Pay those $18 or go without. At the very least, dont be a hypocrite!
Personally, I think it is an unalienable Right of any man, woman and child to copy any and all released information without any restriction. On the other hand, it is also our solemn Duty to support the artists that we like. I follow my ethics - I copy, and I support.
/Dervak
Oh yeah?!
3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8... (101 decimals from memory)
Geekier than thou! ;-P
/Dervak
So a BIG tsunami could be created with just a modest amount of high explosives? And at a distance? The only way this could be done is for that small explosion to be placed at such a spot to create a secondary, much larger shock, which then creates the tsunami wave. Otherwise there is simply not enough energy. Also, the distance is crucial. A shock that creates a 20 m tsunami at 10 km from null will be only (at most) 1 dm high at 1000 km. If you set off the biggest hydrogen bomb there is (100 Mt) some kms below the sea you would get a substantial tsunami out to, say 1000 km, but coasts further away would hardly notice it. Only earthquakes and volcanic eruptions (and impacts) with energies far larger than the biggest nuke (100x - 1000x) produce tsunamis that are devastating across oceans. Of course lesser events, including nukes, can cause much destruction, albeit on a regional scale. There are two types of spots where you could, conceivably, produce substantial tsunamis with non-nukes. 1) Detonate in a submarine fault near the victim, precipitating an earthquake - and tsunami. Pro: Explosion signature may be cloaked by earthquake, avoiding suspicion of agression. Con: Unpredictable, level of stress in fault must be high to begin with. 2) Detonate in submarine scarp to create submarine landslide - and tsunami. Pro: Slopes are already unstable at many places. Con: Unpredictable, explosion signature harder to conceal. To sum it up, tsunamis could possibly be created using non-nuclear methods. They would however have to be effected relatively near the target, and are very unpredictable. /Dervak
There is one good reason why most banks in this situation will not inform the authorities at all. Banks rely on public trust in them to earn their money. If they reported such a blackmail attempt to the police it would necessesarily become known by the public. The cost of this in terms of plummeting business (would you lend your money to a bank with that lax security?) would far exceed the $100000 or even $1000000 in ransom. So they pay up and hope it just will go away. /Dervak