Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

712 comments

I realize we're talking about Star Wars... (5, Interesting)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12510929)

...and not Star Trek, but in this vein, The Physics of Star Trek [amazon.com] is one of my favorites. It's written by Lawrence Krauss [cwru.edu] , a theoretical physicist from Case Western Reserve University. Beyond Star Trek [amazon.com] was another good one from him.

He dissects, from a scientific standpoint, some of the common plot elements and familiar staples (such as warp travel, transporters, phasers, etc.) to determine whether they'd be physically possible. An example of some interesting diversions along the way are demonstrating exactly how much data is contained in a human body, and how much bandwidth would be required for a "transporter" to work. It's a fun and interesting read, and includes content that would satisfy anyone from laymen to scientists. Being a fan of Star Trek is a prerequisite, though...

Hey (2, Funny)

mfh (56) | more than 9 years ago | (#12510979)

We're talking about Star Wars -- not Star Trek.

Re:I realize we're talking about Star Wars... (3, Funny)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511163)

He dissects, from a scientific standpoint, some of the common plot elements and familiar staples (such as warp travel, transporters, phasers, etc.) to determine whether they'd be physically possible.

What I want to know is: What kind of offspring do Kirk and the Green Woman have?

Re:I realize we're talking about Star Wars... (0, Troll)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511218)

What I want to know is: What kind of offspring do Kirk and the Green Woman have?

A Vulcan. Which would explain why they turned to logic and supressing their emotions.

Why did Captain Kirk pee on the ceiling? To go where no man has gone before. :P

Re:I realize we're talking about Star Wars... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12511241)

... how much data is contained in a human body, and how much bandwidth would be required for a "transporter" to work


[Somewhere in space, ca 2400 AD]

"Captain, the screen reads Downloading...\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/ 37% # Connection aborted."

"Scotty, what happened down there?"

"Just a minor glitch. I'll have it repaired in about 2 hours."

"Sir, if I may interject. Sensors indicate that someone is war trekking in this part of the galaxy."

"So you're saying that someone else got the other 63% of that new guy in the red shirt? KHHAHHAHHAHHAHANN!"

What the hell? (5, Funny)

CypherXero (798440) | more than 9 years ago | (#12510932)

The website is navagating automatically for me? What the hell?

Re:What the hell? (1)

Stealth210 (447350) | more than 9 years ago | (#12510981)

It's some geniously coded slide show.

Click 'stop' at the top.

Re:What the hell? (5, Informative)

cypherz (155664) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511009)

Yes, this idiotic article is set up as a slide show! Utterly stupid for an article thats mostly text! I would like to take this oportunity to tell the web designers who did this: "You suck". This is one of the true atrocities of the web, only surpassed by web sites that play music or sound effects.

To stop the slide show click the stop button. Oh yeah, it starts the slide show _again_ when you click the "next" button. So to read the article you have to click "stop" every time you click "next" or "Previous". One of the most mis-featured pages I've ever seen!

It's not a bug, it's a feature (5, Insightful)

Tassach (137772) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511142)

You're assuming they want you to read the article. They could care less. They care about ad impressions, and flipping from one page to the next automatically cranks them out faster.

Re:What the hell? (1)

robertjw (728654) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511153)

One of the most mis-featured pages I've ever seen!

No doubt. You would thing Forbes could afford to hire a web designer that doesn't have his head up his ass.

Maybe I should send a resume.

Re:What the hell? (4, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511038)

Never underestimate the power of the force. B-)

Re:What the hell? (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511254)

Don't be too proud of this technogical terror you have created...

Re:What the hell? (2, Funny)

shreevatsa (845645) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511041)

Maybe he doesn't want the page to get slashdotted, and thinks he can try to "evenly distribute" the slashdot effect on his different pages, thus leading to a lower likelihood of getting /.ed. :)

Re:What the hell? (3, Interesting)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511121)

And since I had Firefox load the site in the background, I had no idea how much stuff I missed while doing other things. Clicking the link at the end of the presentation to return to the introduction returns a page not found error. Way to alienate the people most likely to read your article, Forbes. Please stick to business news.

Re:What the hell? (4, Informative)

shreevatsa (845645) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511162)

Ok, I found a way to slow it down: Click here [forbes.com] . It doesn't stop the slide show, just gives you 600 seconds per page instead of 6. That should be enough time (and you can always click next and previous, anyway).

Re:What the hell? (1)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511269)

Ok, I found a way to slow it down: Click here.

Or, you could just click on that "STOP" icon at the top of the screen...

Summary: (1, Funny)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 9 years ago | (#12510947)

It's not.

I don't know about their technology... (5, Informative)

shreevatsa (845645) | more than 9 years ago | (#12510948)

BUT THE JEDI RELIGION IS A HOAX! Read The Force Skeptics Page [netcom.com] !
Man, I love the way that guy writes, so seriously :)

Re:I don't know about their technology... (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511112)

As soon as my lightsabre is available for $99.99 in Walmart I will hack you to pieces for your blasphemy you you blasphemer you.

Regarding Lightsabers (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 9 years ago | (#12510949)

"The combination of medieval chivalry and modern lethal technology is pretty ridiculous," says Wilczek. "In real history, gunpowder--or even good crossbows--pretty much put knights out of business."

And therein lies one of the problems I've always had with Star Wars and Star Trek. Are you telling me that in a world with hand-held weapons that can supposedly level/vaporize small mountains you are going to pull out your bat'leth or lightsaber and duke it out hand to hand? Heck -- forget the hand phasers/blasters -- you could kill them from orbit fairly easily with either SW or ST level technology.

Yeah, yeah, I know, dramatic license and effect. I miss Babylon 5. Wait -- they had the Minbari using melee weapons too. *Sigh*

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (1)

Shinob1 (882656) | more than 9 years ago | (#12510978)

That is why the Jedi's were so hardcore. In a world of laserguns they were using laserswords and the force. They didn't need no stinking badgers! err.. guns!

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (1)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511074)

They didn't need no stinking badgers

The only place that needs Badgers is Wisconsin.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12510990)

you could kill them from orbit fairly easily with either SW or ST level technology.

Uh huh...And then I suppose you're going to tell me they could make a planetoid thing that can blow up other planets, too, right?

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511040)

Uh huh...And then I suppose you're going to tell me they could make a planetoid thing that can blow up other planets, too, right?

Actually I have a hard time buying the Death Star just on the basis of the sheer amount of energy it would take to completely destroy an Earth-like planet. Somebody calculated it out once -- it would take the entire output of the Sun for one week. I don't see how you can possibly generate that much energy and still be within the laws of physics.

But as far as killing people from orbit goes -- yeah, it's no problem for the Federation or the Empire. Hell, it's not much of a problem to do it today -- though I'd suspect that a Galaxy Class Starship or ISD could do it more a bit more precision then we could with our technology (killing people from orbit with our technology probably implies nukes -- and they aren't very precise).

How So? (1)

TamMan2000 (578899) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511116)

killing people from orbit with our technology probably implies nukes

How did you come to that conclusion?

Re:How So? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511227)

How did you come to that conclusion?

Because I don't think we have deployed directed energy weapons to orbit and I don't see what other type of weapon you could use from orbit that would be powerful enough to make a sure kill against somebody on the ground besides a nuke.

Granted our nukes aren't deployed in orbit either -- and ICBM's don't reach orbit -- but my point (without over-thinking it too much) was that if you can kill somebody from orbit with current technology (you can) how hard can it be for the people of SW/ST to do so?

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12511120)

Actually killing people from orbit need not involve anything more technlogically advanced than a large rock. See "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein for a reasonable, if fictional, treatment of how this would work.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12511180)

Actually, if you're in orbit and you chuck a rock at someone on the ground, it will come right back up at you. You'd have to slow the rock's orbital velocity somehow in order to get it to remain at a lower altitude.

I remember thinking "Bullshit," when I first heard this, but it does make sense.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12511177)

Killing people from orbit is actually a lot closer to our current technology that you might think. There was a program during the "Star Wars" era (SDI, for you military types) called "Smart Pebbles" if my memory is correct. The idea was to launch into orbit a whole bunch of carbon steel penetrator rods, then when you needed to hit a target, transmit its co-ordinates from the ground (using the at-the-time newfangled GPS) and de-orbit one of the rods towards the target. A small rod of a few pounds would re-enter the atmosphere and hit the target with an incredible amount of kinetic energy and BOOM! One dead tank, building, platoon, etc. No nukes required.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12511215)

I have a hard time buying the Death Star just on the basis of the sheer amount of energy it would take to completely destroy an Earth-like planet.

As much as I loathe saying this, I think that you've not considered that energy==matter.

Consider something that could break atomic bonds, and start a chain reaction in the earth itself... all of a sudden, the amount of energy you need to expend goes down drastically - you just need enough to start the reaction itself.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (1)

Golias (176380) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511228)

If you really want to be a killjoy, ask this:

If force powers are an inherited genetic trait (high levels of "midichloreans" or whateverthefuck in your blood means "the force runs strong" in your family), then why didn't the evil Palpatine make his clone army out of a Sith lord, such as Darth Maul, instead of some average Joe Loser.

Granted, he was a Joe Loser who could fight well enough during that rainstorm scene to make Obi-Wan look like a sissy girl, but still... wouldn't an army of Sith Lords be better than a couple million Jango Fetts who can't even shoot straight?

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12511229)

Actually I have a hard time buying the Death Star just on the basis of the sheer amount of energy it would take to completely destroy an Earth-like planet. Somebody calculated it out once -- it would take the entire output of the Sun for one week

That doesn't make any sense. It might take that much energy to bleed off the Earth's orbital velocity and send it crashing into the Sun, but by the time we hit the photosphere, I'm sure the whole planet would be so much vaporware. Got a citation for this?

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (4, Insightful)

Mad_Rain (674268) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511027)

Yeah, and I suppose that to save the Armed Forces money, they should stop supplying the soldiers knives. It's not like they would actually use them for, say, hand to hand combat or something, when the y have guns and tanks and stuff.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (1)

Elshar (232380) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511134)

I don't even know how you got moded insightful. A knife? A freakin' knife?

If we were to arm our military like they do in star wars, we'd be giving every soldier their normal equipment plus a crossbow, a pack of bolts, a knife, AND a sword. And then telling them to close in as quick as possible and engage in hand to hand combat. :P

I think *that* is what the OP was trying to say. Its kind of rediculous to think anyone at all would ever try to engage anyone else in melee weapon combat as a battle tactic. Its no wonder the jedi died off. :P

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511154)

Well knives are essentially dead for combat. The main reason we issue our soliders knives is for utility work, anything from cutting food to cutting up a shirt to use as an emergency tourniquet. The only reason one would use a knife in combat is if you were totally out of ammo and support.

Now in the case of the Bat'leth seems much less feasable given it's size. I mean a good knife isn't going to be over 12 inches total. That's easy to carry, and easy to use for non-combat operations. A bigass curved sword really isn't, you can't do much fine work with it and it's big enough to be a significant problem to carry.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511183)

Not sure what you are trying to get at here. Yes, we still give Soldiers and Marines bayonets. However, I'd like to see some statistics on how many times they have been used in various conflicts over the last 100 years.

I think you'd find that the bayonet has probably been used to open more MREs than body cavities.

The point is, you have a single Jedi with a single blade. Just have three guys fire at different places at the same time. Two of thoes should hit him.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (3, Insightful)

Shky (703024) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511056)

A good Jedi can deflect a blaster shot back at the attacker. That's why they use them. Normal people couldn't block bullets with swords, nor could they stop a bullet with another bullet. That's what makes the Jedi in Star Wars cool -- they can defend against anything, as they are defenders, not attackers.

(Someone nerdier than me can feel free to correct me if I missed something)

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (2, Funny)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511105)

they can defend against anything, as they are defenders, not attackers.

Just like Han Solo. Although he wasn't a Jedi, he was still DEFENDING himself! Oh, wait, nevermind....

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (1)

shreevatsa (845645) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511194)

Dear LucaBrasi,
You couldn't defend yourself against three guys strangling you, so you have no right to comment about others.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (1)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511221)

That's not fair. One of the guys was behind me and another one used a knife on my hand....

And there's more.... (3, Informative)

DG (989) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511213)

A sword/lightsabre offers the user more options too.

You can choose to just defend with it - protect yourself without threatening your opponent.

You can also selectively wound with it as well, giving you the ability to disarm (heh, literally) your opponent without killing him. As a lightsabre cauterizes as it cuts, the opponent won't bleed to death (although I bet he goes into shock pretty hard...)

It can also be used as a general purpose cutting tool - good for cutting through doors, cables, or whatnot.

By comparison, a gun (or blaster) is an all-or-nothing deal. You can kill with it by blowing a hole in someone... and that's about it. You cannot parry with a gun. It's nearly impossible to selectively wound with a gun. And aside from its intended purpose, a gun can't do anything else.

The gun's big advantages are ease of use (a gun does not rely on the strength or size of its wielder, at least not for reasonable calibres), its ability to kill at an extended range, and its near-unblockability. But given that Jedi can parry gunfire with their lightsabres (neat trick, that - how do you practice?) and are trained enough that "ease of use" isn't a factor... the lightsabre starts to look pretty good.

In real life, sword loses to gun at all except close quarters - especially if the gun wielder doesn't know the sword is there. But against all other weapons, the sword's ability to parry and defend without necessarily inflicting lethal damage make it pretty attractive.

DG

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511237)

Until the opposition figures this out and gets shotguns.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12511086)

You're missing the point. It's an elegant weapon, from a more civilized age.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (1)

kahei (466208) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511094)


There's plenty of scope for chivalry and general heroics in an environment of lethal ranged weaponry. The flying aces of world war 1 -- the tank aces of world war 2 -- the assassins of the Cold War -- the mercenaries of the Biafran war -- the guy that just manages to sprint to within grenade distance of a machine-gun nest.

As long as the two sides are roughly evenly matched, there's scope for both honor and ingenuity in deciding the conflict. It's only when the sides are mismatched that it becomes a methodical process.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (5, Funny)

hikerhat (678157) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511096)

The U.S. could destroy the middle east from orbit, but they have troops in there fighting with simple hand held weapons. Sometimes you don't want to kill every one. It's bad PR. And who would pump your oil when you're done?

What good is a knife in a nuke fight? (1)

JudgeFurious (455868) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511115)


I can't believe I went down to "Starship Troopers" to try and argue the point for hand held weapons. I'm sorry.

Finesse has advantages (1)

abb3w (696381) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511139)

Are you telling me that in a world with hand-held weapons that can supposedly level/vaporize small mountains you are going to pull out your bat'leth or lightsaber and duke it out hand to hand?

Are you telling me that in a world with fuel-air bombs that can blow up small cities, you still need infantry?

In situations where control, rather than annihilation, of something is required, sheer brute force is inadequate. You need more precise application of power to capture than destroy-- and capture and control are often far preferable.

It's also probably relevant that you might not want to casually use armor penetrating projectile or high-energy weapons in a thin-hulled space station, for risk of ricochets or misses. Energy weapons are also undesirable in overly oxygenated atmospheres. Things like Dorothy Wire [schlockmercenary.com] , Variable Swords [technovelgy.com] , or even a good old fashioned Bowie Knife [knifeoutlet.com] will be useful as secondary weapon choices, for when you want to take life, without taking out life support.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (3, Interesting)

MagicDude (727944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511182)

As I've understood it, the lightsabers are made with the Jedi's use of the force to meld the component parts together, thus ensuring that only the jedi can construct lightsabers. The lightsaber, in addition to being a slicing and dicing weapon, becomes a focal point for the jedi to focus their force abilties upon. The Force is the jedi's ultimate weaspon, the lightsaber is simply a means of utilizing this weapon and through it deflect blaster bolts and such. Darth Vader, being a supreme master of the Force can use his own hand to block blaster bolts (as seen in TESB), and Yoda could absorb Force Lightning with his hand. However, regular Jedi like Obi Wan need lightsabers to block blaster bolts and absorb Force Lightning.

Vulcan, from "Baron Munchausen" (4, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511195)

rusty quote...

It kills the enemy. All of the enemy. And allof his family, and all of his oxen, and all of his cattle, and all of his manservents, and all of his maidservents...

The point of WMDs, be they yielded by nations or terrorists, (distinction left to the reader) is that they conquer nothing, because they leave nothing. If there's a good purpose, they demoralize the enemy into surrendering, and prevent further bloodshed. The fearsome thing about the neutron bomb was that it would make nuclear war practical again, which was why Jimmy Carter cancelled it.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (5, Insightful)

Knara (9377) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511205)

Setting aside the issues raised by the loose conglomeration of plot elements that is Star Wars, you're missing a few points about the Jedi. The Jedi are an elite order with superhuman powers. They enjoy the endorsement of government during the Old Republic, and conduct themselves more or less as a royal order. They are not the front-line soldiers or mainline military forces. You'll note that those forces have rather elaborate technology in relation to exactly what you mentioned above.

Since the Jedi have superhuman reflexes (possibly due to premonition skills if Qui-Gon's explanation in Episode 1 is to be accepted), hand-to-hand combat is commonly decided in their favor vs. a small number of armed opponents. However, as will likely be seen in Episode 3, the Jedi fall when systematically hunted down by large forces. When they no longer enjoy backing by the ruling powers, they are reduced essentially to the Star Wars version of ronin (rogue samurai), who are deadly in single combat, and influential in reputation (and in the case of the Jedi, powerful in the supernatural skills they learn), but aren't a formidable military force.

(as for the Minbari, a similar thing is the case; the Rangers were not front-line troops, but rather couriers, clandestine agents, later diplomatic representatives, etc; the "Warriors" had suitably high-tech weapons)

The deal with lightsabers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12511236)

Are you telling me that in a world with hand-held weapons that can supposedly level/vaporize small mountains you are going to pull out your bat'leth or lightsaber and duke it out hand to hand?

A trained Jedi with a lightsaber has the best of both worlds: a lethal hand-to-hand weapon and a blaster (i.e. deflected shots). Not only that, they can cut thru blast doors, chop down trees, etc.

Re:Regarding Lightsabers (2, Funny)

robertjw (728654) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511260)

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Han Solo, outspoken skeptic of the Force

Oh! My Dear Lord!! (4, Funny)

cOdEgUru (181536) | more than 9 years ago | (#12510950)

The Starwars Holiday Special!! featuring the happy family reunion of Chewbacca, wife Malla and son Lumpy(!!!!)

The Jedi Arena!! Two rectangles swinging sprites at an orange glob!!!

Christmas in the Stars!! featuring "What Can You Get a Wookiee for Christmas (When He Already Owns a Comb?)" and R2-D2 dishing out "We wish you a Merry Xmas"!!!

It all makes sense now!!!

But LUMPY!!! If I ever came up with a character name as "Lumpy", I would wilfully get eaten by a Dianoga [starwars.com] !!

Short Summary (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12510957)

None of the tech in Star Wars is feasible. It violates the laws of physics and is for entertainment value only. Also, Star Wars is not science fiction, it is actually fantasy.

Re:Short Summary (0, Troll)

killawatt5k (846409) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511045)

Parent is right Mod up for being Insightfull

cute slideshow. (5, Funny)

Guano_Jim (157555) | more than 9 years ago | (#12510967)

You've gotta be a speed reader to read each mini-article at the slideshow's default speed. What dope at Forbes decided how fast his readers should read?

That slideshow could make the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs.

Re:cute slideshow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12511089)

For that matter, what dope at Forbes decided a slideshow is a good way to present an article?

Re:cute slideshow. (1)

bobcave (775032) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511191)

That '...made the kessel run in under 12 parsecs...' line always bothered me. Did Georgie just hear 'parsec' one day in the context of astronomy and just ASSUME it was a unit of time or what?

ummm (2, Funny)

mangus_angus (873781) | more than 9 years ago | (#12510980)

"The combination of medieval chivalry and modern lethal technology is pretty ridiculous," in regards to lighsabers....umm it's call the force you geek poser! Now excuse me, mother has just yelled down here into the basement that the brownies are done.

What the... (5, Funny)

MagicDude (727944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12510986)

Hello?? McFly?? Did you miss the first line of every single movie??

A LONG TIME AGO IN A GALAXY FAR, FAR AWAY...

It's already happened, thus it's feasability is already established.

Re:What the... (1)

CypherXero (798440) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511014)

Hello?? MagicDude?? Did you miss the first line of every single movie??

A LONG TIME AGO IN A GALAXY FAR, FAR AWAY...

Re:What the... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12511198)

So...
Hello?? MagicDude?? Did you miss the first line of every single movie??

A LONG TIME AGO IN A GALAXY FAR, FAR AWAY...

because it's far, it's not happened yet, right?

Jedi Arena (2, Interesting)

Medieval (41719) | more than 9 years ago | (#12510988)

Actually, I enjoyed Jedi Arena

Re:Jedi Arena (2, Interesting)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511015)

I did too, it was one of the few two player games for the Atari 2600 that actually let both people play at once and didn't have horrible glitches like Combat! did. I remember spending hours playing Jedi Arena with my brother.

Re:Jedi Arena (1)

Medieval (41719) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511080)

I remember my brother and I hitting one another in the face with the paddle controllers for hours after particularly heated games.

Re:Jedi Arena (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511186)

I didn't enjoy it, it seemed so pointless. And whenever that stupid thing became crazy shooting sparks everywhere...

i mean, that's it? This is "using the force"? Frankly I was disappointed by the thing (and i was 8!). I had more fun admiring my starwars bedsheet.

tech talk (4, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#12510995)

"In real history, gunpowder--or even good crossbows--pretty much put knights out of business."

And Ben Kenobi referred to laser beam swords weapons of a more civilized age.

I dunno, if blasters are supposed to be "more random", how come Jedis are still able to block their shots?

This makes as much sense as Chewbacca, a wookie, living with Ewoks on Endor.

Re:tech talk (2, Insightful)

Shinob1 (882656) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511049)

Yes, I am sure cutting someone's hand off with a lasersword is much more civilized then shooting them in the chest with a lasergun. I mean come on! It would really suck to get sliced up by a laser sword. Then again, it would cauterize the wound so maybe that's why it was more civilized???

Re:tech talk (1)

Medieval (41719) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511156)

I'd say that fighting with swords is more civilized because its a whole lot harder to take a cheap shot at someone from 100 yards with a sword. You have to have the balls to walk up to the person and start swinging, and hope they don't kick your ass asap.

Re:tech talk (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511088)

Blasters have to be more random. I mean, look at the sheer number of stormtroopers in the original trilogy who can't hit the broadside of a Star Destroyer. It's only when they use volume of fire (or get a really lucky shot) that they actually manage to wound or kill anyone.

Kierthos

Re:tech talk (1)

Homology (639438) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511097)

And Ben Kenobi referred to laser beam swords weapons of a more civilized age.

Yeah, beheading someone with a laser sword is very civilized. You have the honour of watching someone die while covered in their blood. It's so civilized, indeed.

Re:tech talk (1)

cft_128 (650084) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511202)

Yeah, beheading someone with a laser sword is very civilized. You have the honour of watching someone die while covered in their blood. It's so civilized, indeed.

Not covered in blood - the light saber should cauterize the wound. Very civilized.

HHGttG (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511238)

Not only can it cauterize flesh as it cuts it, but it can also toast bread as you slice it.

Re:tech talk (1)

Shky (703024) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511204)

Lightsabers cauterize the wound, so you can do the damage without the mess. Seems more civilized to me.

Re:tech talk (1)

Kehvarl (812337) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511137)

I think the random comment was more about the fact that you could shoot a guy with a blaster, and unless you hit something vital (like the head) you weren't necessarily assured of killing him. Whereas with a lightsaber, you weren't going to stop until the twitching stopped so there was no randomness to the likelyhood of killing them. Also, it's easier to -not- kill with a saber intentionally as well.

"humans will suffocate at speeds exceeding 30mph" (1)

maharg (182366) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511028)

.. and pigs will never fly

Maybe in a thousand years . . . (4, Funny)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511032)

Someone will come up with a non-slashdottable web server.

"Twenty miles . . . twenty miles . . . twenty miles. Eight thousand cube miles of rackspace, powered by fifty sub-atomic reactors, all designed to respond to the subconcious urges of the ancient Krell web-surfers."

Stefan

Re:Maybe in a thousand years . . . (1)

CyberNigma (878283) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511155)

w0rd,
but remember. the Krell died "crashed" because of the strength and unpredictability of the ID "slashdot".. :-)

Gluons are not what lightsabers are made of (5, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511052)

Man, Forbes must be desperate for readers to jump on the Star Wars bandwagon now.
Lightsabers are not lasers or simply light, they are directed concentrated energy fields that can cut better than a Ginsu knife.
A better reason for saying lightsabers are not feasible is due to the problems encountered when accidentally firing up one. Many Jedi and Sith limbs have been lost due to carelessness and showing off. Lightsaber safety is a serious issue, and people should not dismiss their potential dangers!

trip master monkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12511098)

Where's Trip Master Monkey to be appalled [slashdot.org] by such things as this?

The Forbes slideshow format ... (2, Insightful)

jkujawa (56195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511109)

Is one of the worst things I've ever seen on the web. And they've been doing it for fucking *years*.
Have they ever actually done any usability studies on it?

ObTopic: I always assumed a "real" lightsabre would be something closer to magnetically-bottled plasma, which would explain its ability to deflect other lightsabres.

Re:The Forbes slideshow format ... (1)

GGardner (97375) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511160)

Have they ever actually done any usability studies on it?

Useability, shmoozability. I'm sure it is an evil ploy to increase number of ads shown.

Re:The Forbes slideshow format ... (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511169)

Well, nothing wrong with your imagination in that case.

Re:The Forbes slideshow format ... (2, Interesting)

mr_snarf (807002) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511170)

Yeah, I never thought they were supposed to be lasers anyway. Same with blasters. I thought lightsabers were sort of force-related, hence magical, hence science doesn't matter.

Glad It Is Nearly Over (3, Insightful)

geomon (78680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511126)

I liked the first three movies, tolerated the latest three movies, and was annoyed from day one on the hype surrounding the entire Star Wars phenomenon.

It would have been nice to have lived through only one Star Wars flood of commercial crap, but instead we have had to live through decades of Star Wars toys, drink cups, board games, etc.

I'm glad it is nearly over. Now I only have to tolerate the nostalgia periods that will pop up every decade or so.

Sounds in outer space (5, Insightful)

Emperor Shaddam IV (199709) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511129)

Ships and weapons make sound in a vacuum in the Star Wars/Star Trek universes. Defying the physical laws of this universe.

Never quite go over this. However, the 1968 movie 2001 space odyssey, got it right!

Re:Sounds in outer space (3, Funny)

BadElf (448282) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511206)

Except for the date, that is.

Re:Sounds in outer space (1)

Xolotl (675282) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511267)

Apparently when doing the previews of one of the early space-based SFs (it may have been the original Star Trek series, I forget) the audience reacted very negatively to the silence as the ships flew by and thought it "wrong" (go figure, but that's a lay audience for you ...) so the producers put in noise. to satisfy them.

wow, engage bs factor 8 (5, Informative)

william_w_bush (817571) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511173)

light sabers.
he doesn't get it, they aren't "made of light", they just look like they are. take a 1mK ion source, have it output out of the long end, give the blade a very strong magnetic field that bends that ion stream along the blade but does not touch it. place a weak magnet on the hilt to reabsorb the ions to be charged again.

a. this thing would probably about as hot as the sun, so touching would be double-plus ungood, even on the hilt. the charged ions would repel each other like in the movies, as long as the charge density was high enough.

b. omfg the power needed would be huge to create a blade of any intensity, ion plasma streams have been created in a tokamak, but not for any length of time or intensity, so youd need a serious cryonic ion storage tech, and that would be used up fast, and youd still get an arc-ing effect if it came near anything. think ball-lighting on crack.

c. i doubt you could move it easily, and if it touched a solid object the charge would be dissipated and the blade and other object would explode... a lot.

so the photon blade idea, no, and the gluon idea was pure 100% columbian grade crack from someone who never finished reading that neat book about physics, cause gluons don't really work that way. i'm sure someone could fix the engineering problems i have so far with a little effort.

Re:wow, engage bs factor 8 (1)

cOdEgUru (181536) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511255)


i'm sure someone could fix the engineering problems i have so far with a little effort


They have..Lookie here [masterreplicas.com]

Oh!! You mean.... *scurries away like an Ewok*

Re:wow, engage bs factor 8 (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511258)

Are the blaster pistols also not made of light, and that's why you can see one coming when it's shot AT you?

Never mind Star Wars tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12511184)

No Star Wars spaceship can achieve Ludicrous Speed, let alone go Plaid.

Lightsabers could work (1)

radiumhahn (631215) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511187)

Its a common misconception that lightsabers are made of light... they are merely telescopic rods that glow brightly because of a quantom effect. Don't get your science from Forbes.

"Greedo Shoots First"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12511243)

The article claims this is said everywhere.

Who the fuck wrote this? I love pop culture fluff pieces that pretend to be "in the know" from the straights. Of course - why this shit is in FORBES I have no idea. Perhaps the Wall Street Journal will have an insert on ultimate fighting next week.

once and for all, what ARE lightsabres (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511261)

A lightsabre is a light sabre. Sabre meaning blade. I would assume that the best answer, which has been given before, is that one could create a working light sabre with a telescopic glowing blade or sharpened antenna. a fixed-length laser of that strength isn't feasible without having it go farther than 3 feet, but if one day that ever happened, sign me up, i want one.

Come on! (3, Insightful)

Tenebrious1 (530949) | more than 9 years ago | (#12511263)

The only reason the Jedi were effective with the light saber, was because the damn Storm Troopers couldn't hit the side of a barn with their blasters. Seriously, there's only so many blaster shots a Jedi can deflect at one time. Maybe if he's real good, he can block two shots at once. But if you had three troopers fire at the same time... ON TARGET... then there'd have been many less Jedi around.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...