I live in Adeliade Australia.Last XMAS I made the big upgrade from tape to DVD. So I bought a unit that could play any zone without modifying any hardware or doing any chip stuff. It was a normal purchase from a large retail chain. The zone was set by password, and we left it on Zone 0. We play zone 1 and zone 4. So far only one zone 1 disc has given us problems. Whats the problem???
Who has done something wrong here???
It's 1947.
The USA is interested in high altitude effects on the human body. Some test pilots have had problems and the jets don't go high enough yet.So they want to use high altitude balloons. It is considered very dangerous and quite likely fatal due to varius unknowns.
So they use military prisoners who are willing to "volunteer". One balloon crashes with it's payload and is seen before it is recovered. So a story is spun about weather balloons, covering the story about spying on the Russians, covering the sory about..
The fact it *can* be done? Although I'm sure sure that no altruistic/. reader would want to splat the UK countryside it's probably about about time that we all had that father and son (assuming females have more sense) chat about why it is not a good thing. This sort of chat has happened once before in 1978 (?) when New Scientist published the "How to build your own Nuke" article. Initially it was pooh-poohed until people realised it would work. *Then* I imagine a lot of people worked out how to detect and stop some looney from actually doing this.Can you spell Eschelon? 23 years later we are now in the same situation and some English gentlemen are pointing out to us how doable this all is. The same really applies to biological and chemical weapons. It needs to be talked about openly so people understand the real risks if some looney decides that their worldview is correct and the rest can burn in hell. Forwarned is forarmed.People just seem to underestimate risks these days and assume everyone is nice and peaceful.Yeah , right!!
www.mirreentry.com sponsored by Iridium ??
on
Mir Deathwatch
·
· Score: 2
how ironic, I guess they could be learning what it 's all about?
Using Moores Law I get about 2024 for this amount of RAM sitting in front of me, based on how long it takes leading edge to make it to off the shelf.
ie (2500GB/128MB) = 1.5 ^n, n is about 24.
And for others in the know, what would the complexity of the leading edge be then and how does this compare to human neural complexity?
Well, it's good to see that Microsoft have not denigrated the female of the species by including them as "action figures". I wonder what this says about their corporate culture?I guess that while the twenty something pimply slaves of bill are running around trying to be part of the action the girls are working behind the scenes actually getting things to work. Must be a real lot of them too.
Has anyone else noticed that the year is 1999 and there has *not* been a successful terrorist attack against the USA of UK with a weapon of mass destruction, such as a biological agent? I find it utterly astounding now, unlike say 1995 when it would have been rather unlikely, that this has not happened. Of all the people with a grudge against the USA on the entire planet not one of them is capable of pulling off such an attack? Call me an optimist but maybe Echelon is actually working! It would be nice if the spin merchants within the security agencies responsible come out with some good news occasionally about how such monitoring might have it's good points because sure I'm they'll get canned for all the bad points.
People need to very very careful when critising the "peer review" system of scientific reporting.It has led to the most successful method of human development. Although I agree that "peer acceptance" is generally stifling this is really a distorted view of how the scientific process works. "Peer acceptance" is not desireable because it assumes those reviewing already have made up their minds. "Peer review" on the other hand is there as part of the scientific method to ensure that certain minimum criteria has been provided. This must include data and facts. It should also include full descriptions of how the data was gethered so others can repeat the observations so cheating is minimised. There should be references to any other relevant data. What is proposed should be logical and not require to inviolate existing well backed up research unless the author has the evidence to back it up. And the matter should be considered in an objective light, not one tainted by personal opinions, politics and how people would like the world to operate. Without these checks and balances you'll end up with new age loonies waving crystals *over* your computer to increase it's speed, and no-one will be the wiser.
The Merchants War by Frederik Pohl has a disturbing future with this sort of advertising taken to it's logical, and likely extremes. The concept of governments and religions replaced by profit caring corporations comes one step closer.
Considering that each human has different DNA, what exactly are they trying to patent? I thought that a slight change in a patent could lead to a new patent, so if they patent *their* human I can patent *me* and it's a slight variation. or , on the other hand, they are patenting the braod concept of human DNA, and how many existing patents on bits are they duplicating/infringing? And is it a full patent, global, and the cost would be fall all that if true???
Just what we need, another concept promoting the simplistic good vs. bad concept of life. Of course, if you are neither Christian nor Evil incarnate you don't exist. Yep, just what the Christian kiddies need to help them deal with a rather grey life of dealing with grey people. Bravo creativity!
Ok, so we have AI in 2020. An AI running how many times faster than a biological brain? Say a million times. Anyone care to guess what evolution looks like at 1,000,000 times the speed of human development after only one year? I can't think of anything that *wouldn't* be invented or solved after the first year. If 2020 is correct then I think he's missing the entry for 2021.."In the beginning..."
Slashdot Mirror
I live in Adeliade Australia.Last XMAS I made the big upgrade from tape to DVD. So I bought a unit that could play any zone without modifying any hardware or doing any chip stuff. It was a normal purchase from a large retail chain. The zone was set by password, and we left it on Zone 0. We play zone 1 and zone 4. So far only one zone 1 disc has given us problems. Whats the problem??? Who has done something wrong here???
It's 1947. The USA is interested in high altitude effects on the human body. Some test pilots have had problems and the jets don't go high enough yet.So they want to use high altitude balloons. It is considered very dangerous and quite likely fatal due to varius unknowns. So they use military prisoners who are willing to "volunteer". One balloon crashes with it's payload and is seen before it is recovered. So a story is spun about weather balloons, covering the story about spying on the Russians, covering the sory about..
The fact it *can* be done? Although I'm sure sure that no altruistic /. reader would want to splat the UK countryside it's probably about about time that we all had that father and son (assuming females have more sense) chat about why it is not a good thing. This sort of chat has happened once before in 1978 (?) when New Scientist published the "How to build your own Nuke" article. Initially it was pooh-poohed until people realised it would work. *Then* I imagine a lot of people worked out how to detect and stop some looney from actually doing this.Can you spell Eschelon? 23 years later we are now in the same situation and some English gentlemen are pointing out to us how doable this all is. The same really applies to biological and chemical weapons. It needs to be talked about openly so people understand the real risks if some looney decides that their worldview is correct and the rest can burn in hell. Forwarned is forarmed.People just seem to underestimate risks these days and assume everyone is nice and peaceful.Yeah , right!!
how ironic, I guess they could be learning what it 's all about?
Using Moores Law I get about 2024 for this amount of RAM sitting in front of me, based on how long it takes leading edge to make it to off the shelf. ie (2500GB/128MB) = 1.5 ^n, n is about 24. And for others in the know, what would the complexity of the leading edge be then and how does this compare to human neural complexity?
Well, it's good to see that Microsoft have not denigrated the female of the species by including them as "action figures". I wonder what this says about their corporate culture?I guess that while the twenty something pimply slaves of bill are running around trying to be part of the action the girls are working behind the scenes actually getting things to work. Must be a real lot of them too.
Has anyone else noticed that the year is 1999 and there has *not* been a successful terrorist attack against the USA of UK with a weapon of mass destruction, such as a biological agent? I find it utterly astounding now, unlike say 1995 when it would have been rather unlikely, that this has not happened. Of all the people with a grudge against the USA on the entire planet not one of them is capable of pulling off such an attack? Call me an optimist but maybe Echelon is actually working! It would be nice if the spin merchants within the security agencies responsible come out with some good news occasionally about how such monitoring might have it's good points because sure I'm they'll get canned for all the bad points.
People need to very very careful when critising the "peer review" system of scientific reporting.It has led to the most successful method of human development. Although I agree that "peer acceptance" is generally stifling this is really a distorted view of how the scientific process works. "Peer acceptance" is not desireable because it assumes those reviewing already have made up their minds. "Peer review" on the other hand is there as part of the scientific method to ensure that certain minimum criteria has been provided. This must include data and facts. It should also include full descriptions of how the data was gethered so others can repeat the observations so cheating is minimised. There should be references to any other relevant data. What is proposed should be logical and not require to inviolate existing well backed up research unless the author has the evidence to back it up. And the matter should be considered in an objective light, not one tainted by personal opinions, politics and how people would like the world to operate. Without these checks and balances you'll end up with new age loonies waving crystals *over* your computer to increase it's speed, and no-one will be the wiser.
The newspaper article was a bit lacking on references. Here is his web page which has other links. http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/
The Merchants War by Frederik Pohl has a disturbing future with this sort of advertising taken to it's logical, and likely extremes. The concept of governments and religions replaced by profit caring corporations comes one step closer.
Considering that each human has different DNA, what exactly are they trying to patent? I thought that a slight change in a patent could lead to a new patent, so if they patent *their* human I can patent *me* and it's a slight variation. or , on the other hand, they are patenting the braod concept of human DNA, and how many existing patents on bits are they duplicating/infringing? And is it a full patent, global, and the cost would be fall all that if true???
Just what we need, another concept promoting the simplistic good vs. bad concept of life. Of course, if you are neither Christian nor Evil incarnate you don't exist. Yep, just what the Christian kiddies need to help them deal with a rather grey life of dealing with grey people. Bravo creativity!
Ok, so we have AI in 2020. An AI running how many times faster than a biological brain? Say a million times. Anyone care to guess what evolution looks like at 1,000,000 times the speed of human development after only one year? I can't think of anything that *wouldn't* be invented or solved after the first year. If 2020 is correct then I think he's missing the entry for 2021.."In the beginning..."