From: Randall Randall (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Sep 30 2004 - 06:33:13 MDT
On Sep 30, 2004, at 12:17 AM, Keith Henson wrote:
> At 06:45 PM 29/09/04 -0700, you wrote:
>> The feasibility is not the issue here- I was asking why he would
>> prefer to run away from a UFAI at relativistic speeds rather than
>> supraluminal ones. I could not see any inherent disadvantage is
>> higher speeds, that's all.
> I don't really care how I get to less populated zones as long as it is
> so far away that governments or UFAI decided I am not worth chasing.
> But if we are limited to STL speeds I can live with it.
> Distance is time with SLT and few governments are going to go after
> people when it will take decades to centuries just to catch up to
> them. I don't know if an UFAI would be more or less patient.
> On the other hand, if you had a transport that let you step into any
> part of the universe and leave no tracks, you could get lost in a
> billion galaxies (at least).
That's not enough, unfortunately. Even if there are 10^30 solar systems
to run to (probably high), spreading out would be maximally effective
for a papercliper, and assuming a replication time of a week and instant
anywhere FTL, two years suffices to put a starter seed in every system.
Every system. Anywhere. We should hope no FTL of this kind is
FTL limited to some small multiple of light speed is more like STL for
the purposes of this argument, of course.
-- Randall Randall <firstname.lastname@example.org> "And no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based." - Terry Pratchett, _Going Postal_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT