Right. I did a more relevant calculation of that here:
http://science.slashdot.org/co...

Something I've wondered about is why we don't see more relativistic protons hitting earth or the ISS. Is the relative velocity of everything in the universe extremely low? I don't think so. So where are these missing showers on earth right now?

Let's see if I can work this out correctly;
First assume the spaceships weight negligibly different than the mass of the fuel. The thrust needed to push the weight at a steady 1g will be proportional to the mass of the ship at each interval of time. SO the rate of mass burn is proportional to the mass which means the mass is a decaying exponential.

M = Mo * exp( -g * time / thrust_to_weight )

If you think about this for a moment it becomes clear that any amount of mass would do since as the mass gets lighter it takes less fuel so the ship could go indefinitely at 1g. The problem is the assumption that the ship weighs nothing. so let's fix that.

dM/dt = -g*(M+Ms)/thrust_to_weight.

where Ms = mass of ship and M = mass of fuel.

I'm spacing on how to solve that equation so I'll approximate it by saying that until M = Ms we can mostly ignore the ship mass. therfore for a 6.6 year flight time the fuel required is about:

Mfuel = Ms * exp( g* (6.6 years)/thrust_to_weight )

Mfule = Ms * exp( +303,800,000/thrust_to_weight).

So you need a rather high thrust to weight ratio due to the coefficient in the exponetial.

Let the pillory for my "obvious" math errors begin!

it's a matter of fuel with sufficient thrust to weight ratio (unless you want to start thinking about using the interstellar gases as the propellant--- that get's dicey because they will be approaching your craft at near the speed of light)

traveling with a 1G acceleration:
1/2g t^2 = 1/2*11*3E8

so t = 3.3 years to half way. 6.6 years to go all the way and thus 13.2 years for the round trip.

Thus you could easily go there and come back in your lifetime.

Note that this is also Faster than light can make the round trip. However that is not any violation of relativity. THe people on earth would have aged a lot more than 13.3 years during your trip. But you would only have aged 13.3 years.

http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg

What does the Malaysian Republican Army have to do with this?

Well, no, she shouldn't receive death threats.

But she still ran away like a woman, and she's still a delusional d-bag.

Last century, I worked for a magazine sales company that did telephone soliciting. We loved it when people slammed down the phone because it meant no wasted time. The worst was when someone wanted to chat. One time a kid answered the phone and I asked for the dad. She said, "He's out in the garage under the car" and ran off to fetch him. It was a dillemma what to do next. Hang up? wait?. Another time the person on the other end kept repeating only the word yes during my sales pitch and then 5 minutes in switched to "can you please speak chinese". Even when I said "goodbye".

These days, I tell them I'm really glad they called and I need to move to the phone by the computer so I can purchase what they are selling. Then I set the phone down and go about what I was doing.

Phenibut is more like Valium up to 11 than GHB yes. Have you ever had valium delivered as a continuous intravenous drip? You won't remember a damn thing, but you'll be awake and compliant. Mind you, that's a massive bioavailable dose compared to a pill.

Phenibut really is useless, though.

Humans are rational. Humans are rational 100% of the time. They do, at different times, account for different sets of information.

Consider: A human whose life is threatened will execute lethal force without considering the need or consequence, if urgency is so high as to preclude time for consideration. This is rational behavior: immediate recognition of a situation and rejection of analysis which leads to a qualitatively-assessed high likelihood of poor outcome. In a stand-off, a man will try to talk down another man who is threatening someone, even when he's 100% sure he's got the head shot with no consequences beyond his own conscience: there is time to now account for the gut feeling that you would dislike killing a man in cold blood, and hesitation is selected on the grounds of reason.

Criminals in da hood are embroiled in gang wars in which they may die. They die much more often in gang-related violence than by state arrest, trial, and execution. State execution isn't a concern because it never happens: even if 100% of arrests for gang-related murder lead to state execution, their existing actions are getting them killed by gang-related violence 99.9% of the time, and so they really have better things to worry about than the lawman.

Individuals in quieter neighborhoods with low tolerance for criminals aren't used to murders. When convinced that murder is impossible to escape, they hesitate on any impulse to murder: the fact that committing a murder will lead to their inescapable death is burned into the basal ganglia, which constantly provides all known information about a situation--and the concept of killing someone is tied directly to the concept of being hunted and killed by a relentless mob of state enforcers, so the very basic impulse brings a rational decision about facing the enforcers. It takes large amounts of reasoning (often faulty reasoning, as above) or extreme levels of emotion to override this.

Of course humans are rational.