The Rikker episode (that had duplicate Lt Rikker and Commander Rikker) just showed us that you can clone people using 2 beams. Of course, it's still science FICTION, so let's wait until it becomes reality.
I would love the porn industry to get the technology tho. They'd sell you your own clone porn star. You could literally die with a hundred virgins, all who look like the top 100 sexiest FHM models or PlayBoy bunnies.
Topic: NASA is developing warp drives.. (Read 1568 times)
Edit: I'm talking about the beamer thingie in Star Trek that duplicates you and beams you down to the planet then vaporizes the original. The military application would keep the original but the clones do all the work.
According to current transporter theory, the original is destroyed when it is scanned for quantum state. Not something that you can bypass to keep the original.
True, but once you have the data, nothing stops you from making more than one copy.
Edit: I'm talking about the beamer thingie in Star Trek that duplicates you and beams you down to the planet then vaporizes the original. The military application would keep the original but the clones do all the work.
According to current transporter theory, the original is destroyed when it is scanned for quantum state. Not something that you can bypass to keep the original.
The United States would use a few thousand of these and clone all the Special Forces, Seal Teams, Rangers, and Marine Force Recons, and have the best military that doesn't die.
Or they could transport people into suicide missions but they can do it again and again.
If the terrorists get ahold of the technology, they'd use it to to send suicide bombers everywhere.
Or they could transport people into suicide missions but they can do it again and again.
If the terrorists get ahold of the technology, they'd use it to to send suicide bombers everywhere.
The two main drivers of technology are the war and porn industries. If it wasn't for the porn industry we wouldn't be able to watch netflix on the XBox. If it wasn't for the war industry, we wouldn't have the internet. If it wasn't for the porn industry, internet payment systems would have been delayed by several years.
I can't thing of any HORRIBLE tek pioneered by the porn industry. While there is a lot of examples from the war industry.
Maybe the right thing to do is to preempt the war industry and give the keys for transporter tek over to the porn industry.
I'm not all that worried about the terrorists. I'm more worried about the government. I have a feeling if we just walked away from the middle east... just that simple. walk away. Things would sort themselves out just fine.
The United States would use a few thousand of these and clone all the Special Forces, Seal Teams, Rangers, and Marine Force Recons, and have the best military that doesn't die.
Or they could transport people into suicide missions but they can do it again and again.
If the terrorists get ahold of the technology, they'd use it to to send suicide bombers everywhere.
Edit: I'm talking about the beamer thingie in Star Trek that duplicates you and beams you down to the planet then vaporizes the original. The military application would keep the original but the clones do all the work.
Or they could transport people into suicide missions but they can do it again and again.
If the terrorists get ahold of the technology, they'd use it to to send suicide bombers everywhere.
Edit: I'm talking about the beamer thingie in Star Trek that duplicates you and beams you down to the planet then vaporizes the original. The military application would keep the original but the clones do all the work.
Fucking retard.
Yes, but enough about yourself. You were saying something about contributing to the thread?
Existing followers of threads do not go back and reread preexisting posts. Just like any conversation or dialog, new information is presented in linear form. My new post was 100 percent the proper way to present new information I had. You are wrong.
Which would be 100% true, if it were actually new info. As it was, you looked like an idiot. As usual. Your inability to let a subject drop is what is cluttering up this thread, along with your habitual double-posting and now, self-quoting. All the second post did is reveal that you had not read the paper before recommending it. Why would someone recommend something they haven't even read? Your credibility as an opinion source has slipped another notch, further ensuring I will not pick up the books or the movies you suggest.
Fucking retard. Go away unless you have something to contribute to this thread.
Existing followers of threads do not go back and reread preexisting posts. Just like any conversation or dialog, new information is presented in linear form. My new post was 100 percent the proper way to present new information I had. You are wrong.
Which would be 100% true, if it were actually new info. As it was, you looked like an idiot. As usual. Your inability to let a subject drop is what is cluttering up this thread, along with your habitual double-posting and now, self-quoting. All the second post did is reveal that you had not read the paper before recommending it. Why would someone recommend something they haven't even read? Your credibility as an opinion source has slipped another notch, further ensuring I will not pick up the books or the movies you suggest.
And the NASA paper on the laboratory experiment: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf
Interesting paper.
Son, you realize you're quoting yourself, now? That's less sane than usual.
Perfectly sane. Consider, in conversation: one might say, "remember that paper I mentioned? I read it. It was interesting." Clear and concise utilization of forum quoting mechanics.
The forum also lets you edit previous posts. The same effect could have been achieved by editing your post and adding "Edit: Interesting paper." As a bonus, that doesn't add a post that adds nothing to the discussion, nor does it make you look as though you're responding to yourself.
It is an interesting paper, though.
Existing followers of threads do not go back and reread preexisting posts. Just like any conversation or dialog, new information is presented in linear form. My new post was 100 percent the proper way to present new information I had. You are wrong.
Isn't it ironic that all of your contributions to this thread are not relevant at all. At least I have provided some interesting links. But you've forced me to defend my actions also, further cluttering up the thread. I think you're just upset I haven't been posting in the Politics forum, and you feel starved for attention, and thus have resorted to stalking me here. I suggest you go watch a movie. Here's some suggestions: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/there-are-films-and-then-there-are-films-109868
And the NASA paper on the laboratory experiment: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf
Interesting paper.
Son, you realize you're quoting yourself, now? That's less sane than usual.
Perfectly sane. Consider, in conversation: one might say, "remember that paper I mentioned? I read it. It was interesting." Clear and concise utilization of forum quoting mechanics.
The forum also lets you edit previous posts. The same effect could have been achieved by editing your post and adding "Edit: Interesting paper." As a bonus, that doesn't add a post that adds nothing to the discussion, nor does it make you look as though you're responding to yourself.
It is an interesting paper, though.
And the NASA paper on the laboratory experiment: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf
Interesting paper.
Son, you realize you're quoting yourself, now? That's less sane than usual.
Perfectly sane. Consider, in conversation: one might say, "remember that paper I mentioned? I read it. It was interesting." Clear and concise utilization of forum quoting mechanics. As for you, have you watched one of those films yet?
And the NASA paper on the laboratory experiment: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf
Interesting paper.
Son, you realize you're quoting yourself, now? That's less sane than usual.
they are actually investigating microscopic wormholes and seeing how they can be amplified to create macroscopic wormholes. http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4017
Q. Sonny, I don’t understand how you get macroscopic warps with small amounts of energy. It seems the coupling of mass/energy to spacetime curvature, the factor G/c^4 in the Einstein equations, governs how much mass is necessary to warp spacetime on a given lengthscale. How do the optimization procedures you mention alter this basic scaling? It seems you are saying you have found a way to reduce the effective G/c^4.
A. To echo your observation, yes spacetime is really stiff. The findings suggest that if you oscillate the warp bubble, you can reduce this stiffness, and hence the energy required. I will explain this connection in the upcoming paper.
Q. Sonny, I don’t understand how you get macroscopic warps with small amounts of energy. It seems the coupling of mass/energy to spacetime curvature, the factor G/c^4 in the Einstein equations, governs how much mass is necessary to warp spacetime on a given lengthscale. How do the optimization procedures you mention alter this basic scaling? It seems you are saying you have found a way to reduce the effective G/c^4.
A. To echo your observation, yes spacetime is really stiff. The findings suggest that if you oscillate the warp bubble, you can reduce this stiffness, and hence the energy required. I will explain this connection in the upcoming paper.
We're actually WAY ahead of the star trek universe when it comes to technology.
I cant wait for the replicator to get here. All that land we use for crops can be converted to growing trees
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110071535.htm
We're getting close
http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/17/nasa-developing-warp-drive/
Im amazed at how many things we now take for granted were imagined by the creators of star trek.
Im amazed at how many things we now take for granted were imagined by the creators of star trek.
We're actually WAY ahead of the star trek universe when it comes to technology. Communicators? Smart phones kick their ass. Data storage? Star trek had floppy disk looking things and they had to put two or three in. Better computers are already here.
Now, what I really want is transporter technolgy. the TSA can eat a bag of dicks when I get my own personal transporter.
I cant wait for the replicator to get here. All that land we use for crops can be converted to growing trees
Except the transporter failed to vaporize you ship side. The transporter technician sheepishly approaches you, guiding you off to the side, muttering some technical jargon about particle to energy converters failing, herding you into a rarely used compartment with the auspicious title on the panel next to the door: "Reserve particle to energy converter".
Nonsense. Transporter operators have much higher ethical standards than that. Nobody vaporised the duplicate Riker created by accident when a second transporter beam was activated when the first one became dangerously unstable, then the transporter operator forgot to deactivate the first beam, causing the poor guy to be rematerialised twice. Both Rikers were allowed to go on with their lives, though no record is made of society's reaction to the news that transporter operators can duplicate people just by pressing a button. (Probably because, due to the aforementioned ethical standards, transporter operators would never duplicate people deliberately. Oh, no. That absolutely never happens, right? Right?)OMG Ben Bernanke has a money transporter!
http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/17/nasa-developing-warp-drive/
Im amazed at how many things we now take for granted were imagined by the creators of star trek.
Im amazed at how many things we now take for granted were imagined by the creators of star trek.
We're actually WAY ahead of the star trek universe when it comes to technology. Communicators? Smart phones kick their ass. Data storage? Star trek had floppy disk looking things and they had to put two or three in. Better computers are already here.
Now, what I really want is transporter technolgy. the TSA can eat a bag of dicks when I get my own personal transporter.
Except the transporter failed to vaporize you ship side. The transporter technician sheepishly approaches you, guiding you off to the side, muttering some technical jargon about particle to energy converters failing, herding you into a rarely used compartment with the auspicious title on the panel next to the door: "Reserve particle to energy converter".
Nonsense. Transporter operators have much higher ethical standards than that. Nobody vaporised the duplicate Riker created by accident when a second transporter beam was activated when the first one became dangerously unstable, then the transporter operator forgot to deactivate the first beam, causing the poor guy to be rematerialised twice. Both Rikers were allowed to go on with their lives, though no record is made of society's reaction to the news that transporter operators can duplicate people just by pressing a button. (Probably because, due to the aforementioned ethical standards, transporter operators would never duplicate people deliberately. Oh, no. That absolutely never happens, right? Right?) And the NASA paper on the laboratory experiment: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf
Interesting paper.
My mind is blown.
And the NASA paper on the laboratory experiment: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf
Interesting paper.
Jump to: