Beta
×

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!

Comments

top

Cell Transplant Allows Paralyzed Man To Walk

Intrepid imaginaut Re:I'm still waiting... (123 comments)

Oh, look, an article objecting to a specific methodology, that in no way was made illegal.

It's a paper, not some smear of a blog entry.

Okay. Those are equal. Yep. Look, your objection requires people to believe in a huge-criminology wide conspiracy to suppress data, whereas my objection just references a law on the books.

My objection requires people to believe in well supported research, and I don't really give a shit what you're referencing. Want more? Here you go: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert...

I'm not even going to refute what you're saying, because, hell, Straus is a criminologist, and I'm not. But I will accuse you of willful false equivalence. Don't do that.

Get fucked.

5 hours ago
top

Cell Transplant Allows Paralyzed Man To Walk

Intrepid imaginaut Re:I'm still waiting... (123 comments)

There's something very wrong with the notion of not researching things that might reflect negatively on your ideology.

Yes, for example the way feminism routinely hides, obfuscates and outright lies about domestic violence figures.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/...

7 hours ago
top

JavaScript and the Netflix User Interface

Intrepid imaginaut Re:Meh (192 comments)

The delayed transitions are just shitty resource management from lazy hacks, that's a bunch of plugins loading from hither and yon, and it grinds my gears too.

3 days ago
top

JavaScript and the Netflix User Interface

Intrepid imaginaut Re:Why the hell... (192 comments)

It has a lot of merit, especially if you're trying to do anything fancy. Getting the needed processing power from the client, especially in this day and age of overpowered commodity hardware, rather than the server frees up the server to do more important jobs, and really as long as you're sanitising properly inputs why not. What's really needed is a proper push routine but that comes with its own tangled web of problems.

3 days ago
top

Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right

Intrepid imaginaut Re:This looks like a nasty trick. (832 comments)

Yup, exactly. Taxing consumption would disincentivise spending, and when people aren't spending, businesses aren't making any money and hence going out of business.

5 days ago
top

Scanning Embryos For Super-Intelligent Kids Is On the Horizon

Intrepid imaginaut professor in theoretical physics (365 comments)

Did anyone else notive the fact that this dude's a professor in theoretical physics? He wouldn't know a genome from a hole in the wall, why is everyone taking what he says for granted.

The bare facts are we have no clear definition for intelligence yet, never mind being able to accurately predict this difficult to define trait in a developing embryo.

5 days ago
top

Microsoft, Facebook Declare European Kids Clueless About Coding, Too

Intrepid imaginaut Re:Apparently (212 comments)

Yup, why not teach them plumbing, cost me a hundred bucks to have a tap fixed the last day. If everyone was a plumber I'm sure I could have gotten it done for ten.

This is nothing less than for-profit corporations attempting to interfere with the education system for their own financial gain.

about a week ago
top

Outsourced Tech Jobs Are Increasingly Being Automated

Intrepid imaginaut Re:The logical conclusoin (236 comments)

Ha, yeah right. This has been the wet dream of the MBA since computers were first commercialised. Never going to happen, or at least not this century, there's a world of difference between development and tech support.

about two weeks ago
top

Joey Hudy: From High School Kid to Celebrity Maker to Intel Intern (Video)

Intrepid imaginaut Luck (32 comments)

Funny thing about luck is, the harder I work the luckier I get.

about three weeks ago
top

Robotic Taster Will Judge 'Real Thai Food'

Intrepid imaginaut Re:Well .. most asian food in the US is crap (103 comments)

I don't really see the percentage in making something too spicy, I mean why not just eat the spices alone, you'll get the same flavour. On a related note I know a Thai woman who does exactly that, even keeps a box of antacids on hand while doing so.

about three weeks ago
top

The Physics of Space Battles

Intrepid imaginaut Re:There Ain't No Stealth In Space (470 comments)

And you have some religious objections to businesses or what? If you can find anything factually wrong in that article by all means point it out to me and we'll all have a good laugh about it.

about three weeks ago
top

The Physics of Space Battles

Intrepid imaginaut Re:There Ain't No Stealth In Space (470 comments)

They are very hot and will take a fair length of time to cool (not much cool mass to transfer their heat to and wave radiation will take time).

They are also very, very small. A boulder heated white hot will take a great deal of time to cool off, a spark spat from a fireplace, not so much. And let's not forget this is being pushed extremely hard away from the observer.

I don't know for certain but I'll bet that even a kilometer wide bell will not stop particles rapidly going beyond your ship's silhouette.

Actually I was postulating three kilometers in radius but honestly on reflection a few hundred meters would probably do it.

2) If you ever have to change course, you'll have hot particles still that are no longer shielded, further intensifying the problem.

Indeed, no arguments there. However this being space a savvy captain would simply burn for a while then let it cool off while he coasts, before changing the attitude of the ship to the new heading and burning again. Also keep in mind that the further away they are the more leeway they can allow in active course changes - ie the more particles they can let slip past the shroud.

3) A kilometer wide shield may in fact visually occlude things that will allow optical spotting.

At one million kilometers a six kilometer wide shiled will occlude about one eighth of the space that Venus does at its farthest from earth. That's the size of possibly actively cooled forward profile you're trying to detect, and if you're trying to detect it on a ship you're moving very fast while doing so. One million kilometers isn't all that far in space, depending on relative velocities ships could get to within fighting range in hours or days, perhaps even less. A mass driver could pump out a cold missile at extreme velocities to coast right next to a target before igniting from a million kilometers.

4) We already use synthetic arrays. Why does the article limit the array to 24m? I'd say 100m+ is feasible and that sizably increases detection distance.

As another poster mentioned, such equipment doesn't tend to respond well to g-force if mounted on a ship. But okay let's run with it.

If we assume tech progresses, we can have dispersed arrays (and should have given the possibility of attacks) using various satellites deployed in varying orbits around the system (including perhaps ever 60 degrees from your satellite in question plus some further out in the system). In fact, a coordinating system may be able to process data from every friendly sensor in the system. So both the assumptions about detection threshold/range and the assumptions about how many different perspectives at different angles might be available vastly changes the chance of your ship from sneaking in with a hot exhaust.

Ah now you're making assumptions about the environment, that the future consists of a tranquil hegemony of polities throughout the system, or that any putative conflict would even take place within such a system. Or that your fragile monitoring arrays won't themselves become targets in a co-ordinated attack, by their nature they need to remain relatively fixed.

Allow me to postulate a different but equally likely scenario.

Many different polities, on earth and in space, with varying relationships to one another, some cordial, some not so much. There may be corporate states involved, whatever. The interior of the system is well covered by surveillance networks but the exterior not so much, for political and physical reasons. Our space pirate heads off for the outer colonies, all well and good so far, then keeps coasting to a patchily covered location. They extend stealth shrouds, flip, and burn hard for the nearest cargo route, shutting off their engines in time to cool to background levels before they return to coverage.

The shrouds might also act to to deter active scanning. The ship itself goes into stealth mode, all non essential systems shut down, the crew are relegated to a sedentary lifestyle that many modern gamers would be familiar with. In extreme stealth mode they might even be refrigerated, which would allow the ship to cost for far longer time periods.

Once close enough to a trade lane, the pirate ship wakes up, lights up, and takes on the nearest freighter. Due to the distances involved help might be days or weeks coming. Alternately merchant ships could be heavily armed or have escorts, which leads to epic space battles. Taking the loot the pirate burns hard for the safety of the outer reaches where there's no surveillance looking in, or very little, and changes course in the emptiness, becoming once again invisible and annoymous.

I'm not saying it would be a situation which could last for long any more than the age of piracy did on earth, but it's definetely possible.

5) Real engineering means perfectly spherical ships that are thermally identical in all facings are pretty much just not going to happen.

How does that make it any less effective than all the rest of the imperfect engineering (which is all of it)?

Where you have a distributed detection network, as you will around any system of note (and around any fleet of note because they will tend to distribute satellites to extend their synthetic array and increase its sensitivity), you will find it very hard to sneak up with the ship the article mentions.

See above.

why can you drag a km wide heat shield and the other side not drag a km wide lightweight array?

Because one is literally tinfoil and the other is fragile optics and electronics?

My best guide on this is an instrument scientist I know who worked for NASA and who worked on thermal detection. His opinion, with his knowledge of current state of the art and what's likely in the near future, is that thermal stealth is going to be nearly impossible in short order. His opinion was real time processing was within grasp for full-sky in close to real-time within the next decade or two if we wanted to invest in it.

Okay well your anecdotal buddy should probably read this: http://www.businessinsider.com...

By the time we're out colonizing space, it'll be commonplace. The stealth can't keep up.

I say otherwise.

The hard fact here is that project rho is a scattered collection of out of context quotes, falsehoods and flat out glaring mistakes. Like in the laser weapons page, he says you don't need multiple laser turrets, you just need to channel your laser down a central tube and guide it with mirrors. Then a few paragraphs later he says you can't deflect lasers with mirrors because they'll burn out. In the x-ray lasers page he was caught out in saying there was no such thing as x-ray lenses - there are. And yet further down the same page he's still talking about the implications of a lack of x-ray lenses.

Have you seriously looked up the guy behind that? He ain't no scientist and there's precious little science on his page.

about three weeks ago
top

The Physics of Space Battles

Intrepid imaginaut Re:There Ain't No Stealth In Space (470 comments)

It the laws of physics.

Eh at this point it's become painfully apparent that a) you wouldn't know the laws of physics if they bit you on the ass and b) there's something clearly wrong with you.

So, good luck with that.

about three weeks ago
top

The Physics of Space Battles

Intrepid imaginaut Re:There Ain't No Stealth In Space (470 comments)

You are the one who keeps complaining about me addressing them. If you disagree with them then you should not have posted them.

There was no "them", only one point.

There is no "mysteriously" about it. The distance you started quoting is less than the distance from the Earth to Mars.

In other words, interplanetary.

Interplanetary != Interstellar

This is remarkable. You were the one who started banging on about interstellar distances (and then interplanetary for some mysterious reason), not me.

No. I'm comparing the dispersal. You are arguing that the exhaust would not disperse.

In other words, you are arguing that the exhaust is focused BETTER than a laser.

And the heat has to go somewhere. It's one of the laws of physics.

Not in the least, I'm arguing that the heat from the exhaust would have reached negligible levels by the time whatever miniscule amount of it got around the shield, mostly due to the vast majority of it being blocked by the ship and being blasted directly backwards. And as another poster pointed out to you, the exhaust isn't nearly as hot as some might imagine. In fact I was being wildly generous with a 3 kilometer radius shield, in all probability a few hundred meters would do just fine. And even at 6km across, at 1 million kilometers distance it wouldn't be visible to the naked eye if it was a speck of dust on the fingertip. Do you understand this?

Yes it does. The heat of the exhaust does not vanish. Reaction mass does not vanish. Ships need a force to move them.

Physics.

Whatever background in physics you might have had, it's a pretty small angle of the sky by now, I would say.

That you do not understand the distances involved.

In order for the ship to be hidden, it cannot be silhouetted against its own exhaust. Which means that the exhaust cannot cross the edge of the shield before it has cooled to background radiation. But the ship has to travel (at best) 100's of millions of kilometers (Earth to Mars) while the exhaust only has to travel 10 kilometers (at most) laterally before cooling.

In other words, your example ship would be a dark, shielded spot in the middle of a glowing cloud of its own exhaust. It would look like a bullseye.

It's the laws of physics.

And yet again nobody is talking about going from Earth to Mars except yourself. Not that that would be especially difficult mind you.

The reason I asked if you were a humanities guy is because this comes across as straight from the "how to bullshit convincingly " critical theory handbook, wherein one simply keeps throwing random barely related objections at a fact in the hopes that it goes away, also much favoured by creationists. You continually refuse to address the proper physics in the article that blew project rho out of the water (and having looked over that site there's a whole lot more rubbish in there, even the few bits that have been updated since 2004), and appear to be having some sort of meltdown.

So, good luck with that.

about three weeks ago
top

The Physics of Space Battles

Intrepid imaginaut Re:There Ain't No Stealth In Space (470 comments)

There were two sentences out of dozens in that post that I actually wrote.

They are a direct quote from you. If you disagree with them then you should not have posted them.

Who said I disagreed with them?

The distance from the Earth to Mars is about 200 million kilometers.

Your example ship would be closer than Mars is. A lot closer.

Not that readers need it pointed out, but Mars has mysteriously entered the discussion.

There is a reflector on the Moon. People aim lasers at that reflector. Those lasers diffuse over distance. "At the Moon's surface, the beam is about 6.5 kilometers (four miles) wide ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
That's from the Earth to the Moon. So even if you could focus the reaction mass a tightly as a laser it would spread out over a lot more than "a several kilometer wide umbrella" would cover even if you were only as far away as Mars.

Argh. You're comparing an exhaust, which rapidly cools off in space and generally acts very differently to a laser, to a laser. I don't even know where to start with that one.

Yes it can. It does that all the time. You are confusing spotting them with projecting their course over time.

Right, yeah: http://www.businessinsider.com...

It is physics. Unless you want to argue that the laws of physics do not apply ...

You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means.

Unless you're talking about being closer than Mars ... how did it get closer to Mars without being detected?

jackiechanwtf.jpg

Saying that the answer is somewhere else is not addressing my point. Quote it. Like I quoted the Wikipedia article on how much the lasers diffuse between the Earth and the Moon.

I did. It's up there, in italics, marked 5, Informative, with a link to the full article, my first response to your post.

You are now talking about a distance less than the distance between the Earth and Mars. So something blocking out part of Mars would be very noticeable. Not to mention the Sun would be reflecting off of it. And that's not even addressing the interplanetary material that you had previously discounted.

Interplanetary != interstellar.

kilometers 350,000 is about Earth to the Moon
kilometers 200,000,000 is about Earth to Mars
kilometers 39,900,000,000,000 is about Earth to Alpha Centauri

I seriously have no idea where you're getting this stuff. At 1 million kilometers a ship with a 6km wide umbrella around its midriff would occupy about one eighth of the sky that Venus does when it's at its furthest from earth. That's the size of the dot you're saying is occluding everything behind it. That's the size of the dot with negligible differences from the background you're trying to differentiate.

There is no stealth in space.

Oh yes, there is.

about three weeks ago
top

The Physics of Space Battles

Intrepid imaginaut Re:There Ain't No Stealth In Space (470 comments)

That was a direct quote from your post. You posted it.

There were two sentences out of dozens in that post that I actually wrote. You're ignoring all the others quite deliberately, because they show you're wrong.

Are you going to stick to the facts as they are understood today? In order for a ship to move it needs reaction mass.

It's like the terracotta army, except straw men.

And "vast majority" does not equal "stealth". You'd still show up as a glowing cloud of exhaust. That's the point.

So what you're saying is that from a million plus kilometers away, a ship with a forward profile of maybe a few score meters heading directly towards someone that isn't fixated on that miniscule segment of the sky, with a several kilometer wide umbrella to disguise the exhaust bits that weren't sufficiently collimated before they cool off and become indistinguishable from the background noise, especially at those distances, this ship will stand out like a sore thumb?

And that's before we even start talking about the way you don't need to burn thrusters until you're knocking on your target's door. No drag in space, remember?

You were arguing about making them bigger. They DO increase in mass proportional to their size being increased. Make it twice as big and it weighs at least twice as much.

Wow.

Our equipment has (possibly) detected background radiation from The Big Bang.

Our equipment can't even pick up large asteroids before they're a few days away. And they're light coloured infrared emitters moving on predictable tracks at a fairly staid pace compared to the clip our spaceships must be making in order to be useful.

Reaction mass goes out the back of the ship so that the ship can move forward. That's a fairly fundamental concept.

That's right, it doesn't go out the front where the ship is heading. And the reason everyone in the ship isn't cooked to a crisp is because it's going out the back of the ship, away from our putative target. It doesn't magically shine through the ship like a lighthouse. You do understand this, right? Now put that together with the rest of the very simple concepts under discussion and the sun may yet rise.

It is physics.

No, as another poster memorably put it, "it's a painfully mis-organized page of RANTING QUOTES!!! mishandling and misattributing varoius claims." The article I linked to that you steadfastly refuse to address, that's physics.

You claim that it can be hidden across interstellar distances using a shield.

Nope. I'm claiming it can be hidden across much shorter distances under circumstances which are broad enough to be tactically useful.

Along with all the other heat produced by the ship.

Yes, that heat the article that you steadfastly refuse to address, addresses.

I say that you are wrong and that, in your example, the ship would be appear as a shielded dark spot in a glowing cloud of its own exhaust and that it would eclipse other objects behind it. Making it very easy to track.

You're not a humanities guy by any chance? I mean do you have any clue how small of a profile we're talking about here at these kinds of distances?

about three weeks ago
top

The Physics of Space Battles

Intrepid imaginaut Re:There Ain't No Stealth In Space (470 comments)

I'm replying to your post.

No, you're deliberately and obviously ignoring the article.

And that is the problem. You take that and assume that:
a. the exhaust will always be hidden by the ship
b. shields can be put on the ship to hide the exhaust

Actually the problem is you putting words in my mouth and then arguing with those words. The vast majority of the exhaust will be hidden by the ship only as long as it approaches a lone target dead on. The umbrella just gives a few degrees more leeway which decreases the closer you get to your target.

Lightweight is not the same as no-weight. Which gets back to the increase engines to support shields requiring more engines requiring more shields repeat.

You are aware that insulators and light blockers don't need to increase in mass proportional to the source being blocked right? I mean otherwise you'd need more than four walls and a roof to block sunlight. The linear progression you envisage is grasping - a lot. Not to mention that it doesn't need to be perfect, just good enough to beat the enemy's likewise imperfect sensors long enough to get close enough to strike. Dull radiation is as good as no radiation if the enemy can't tell the difference, and don't forget about the distances under discussion here.

While space is mostly empty space your reaction mass is not. Otherwise it would not be reaction mass. And you'd have postulated a reactionless drive. Which is a completely different error.

And off we wander down the garden path again.

Ships have heat. Life support and engines if nothing else.

Okay, so you didn't read the article. Maybe you should get on that.

It's alright to be wrong, you know. Just don't end up like a creationist or a feminist clinging fiercely to disproven articles of faith.

about three weeks ago

Submissions

top

Female gamers who have had enough of politics

Intrepid imaginaut Intrepid imaginaut writes  |  about a year ago

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) writes "An online RPG convention called ConTessa for female gamers who just want to game is being set up by Stacy Dellorfano, who writes: "The idea for ConTessa came about in late 2012 when I started craving for a space for myself where I could just be a gamer without having to constantly talk about being a woman who games, or constantly being expected to comment on every piece of artwork or game or political gender discussion that came up. It became so bad that I rarely got asked to actually talk about the actual games and gaming and frequently got asked to talk about anything involving gender politics.

I thought it would be nice to build a convention where women could set aside the gender politics for a few days and just enjoy being gamers.""

Link to Original Source
top

Annonymous targets Irish websites over SOPA

Intrepid imaginaut Intrepid imaginaut writes  |  more than 2 years ago

Intrepid imaginaut writes "It appears that anonymous has launched a widespread DDOS attack on numerous Irish government websites in the past few hours, taking down justice.ie and finance.gov.ie in an effort to attract attention to a piece of SOPA-like legislation that is being rushed through by Sean Sherlock. A Twitter account affiliated to the Swedish arm of Anonymous said the timing of the attack, when the websites would not be in heavy demand, was a “wake up – warning shot”."
Link to Original Source

Journals

Intrepid imaginaut has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?