Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:No defense (Score 1) 98

First of all. To get EMP you need to detonate in the atmosphere. High up to be sure, but it is the interaction with the atmosphere that creates EMP. Too high and all you have is xrays and high energy particles, so only close stuff is affected. In space a mile wide killzone is in fact really small.

Secondly EMP is *not* the end and is not even that bad (don't believe the movie bullshit). It is like the opposite of a geomagnetic storm. Large power infrastructure is mostly unaffected. Small electronics close to the epicenter *and* turned on will be affected worse. However even civilian electronics tends to be fairly well shielded and even on substrates that give quite a bit of resistance to the pulse these days. Also some stuff will just need to be power cycled. But yea there would a bit of stuff that wouldn't turn on anymore. However hardly the end of the world.

An air burst however would be far far worse.

Comment Re:QuBits (Score 1) 99

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean other don't. And no there has never been a " oh shit we must have just got all this data wrong for 200 years" moment in science. The data and results remain. New theory are not new. They tweak. And we have a lot of data that supports 2 things. FTL of things or information is time travel. Entanglement does not transmit information.

Comment Re:QuBits (Score 1) 99

I meant that factoring is has not been shown to be in NP and that solving factoring faster is not evidence that quantum computers can solve NP problems faster than NP. I am being sloppy with terms here of course.

It has been speculated that no quantum computer can solve NP-complete/hard problems "faster" (ie in P). But then we also have a *very* small set of quantum algorithms to do anything at all. It just so happens that on of them is factoring. With large constants and a heavy burden on total number of operations needed and a fairly heavy classical computing burden as well. But it is still doable in P time.

Yea a little late to the party.

Comment Re:Stupid article (Score 1) 226

TWR of air breathers is on the order of 10 compared to rocket engines in the 50-200 range. So sure you have less max thrust requirements, but your engines+intakes are heaver than the equivalent rocket anyway. Not to mention the very very difficult problem of getting a supersonic craft with a miraculous flight envelope to work without totally shit performance. It cost a fortune for a optimized point design for both the concord and the blackbird. And they are really slow compared to what this needs.

Comment Re:Stupid article (Score 1) 226

No it really isn't that expensive. It is about 1% or less of launch costs. Fuel tanks are cheap and the weight is not that expensive to deal with. This is not an aircraft. Cost don't scale like aircraft, unless you insist on using aircraft for space ships. Cost don't scale with GLOW, they scale with Dry weight.

I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.