"depending on the provider you don't get a new ip address when do those things either. from my limited experiments with Comcast and Time Warner they give the same IP address to the same Mac address every time."
Depending on the setup, this is typically done via the DHCP lease time. The "lease time" is the amount of time a DHCP address will remain assigned to a client if unused. Give accounts a long lease time, and you USUALLY will get your old IP address back when you go back online. But it isn't universally true.
I've found that my IP address has changed about once a year, give or take.
"I told you what I think happens to that 10 Joules. By the first law of thermodynamics it doesn't just disappear so what happens to it?"
Yes, I know you told me but that doesn't happen. It would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
If T is the source and T0 is the other plate, then the cooler plate absorbs some radiative heat from the source... so far fine. Let the system reach equilibrium, with the source radiatively emitting its constant 100 W/m^2, right? Just so we have a known starting point. (The units we are working with are irradiance (in), or radiative emittance (out), which are W/m^2, not Joules.) We know thermal equilibrium does exist and that real-world systems eventually reach equilibrium.
So we're saying that the plate has absorbed some heat from the source. Enough to emit 10 W/m^2 itself. Also just fine.
But remember we are at equilibrium. If the source (which is the ONLY source in our system, remember) absorbs then re-emits 10 W/m^2 to make a total of 110 W/m^2, it is going to heat the plate to an even warmer temperature. And the plate would then kick that back to the source making it warmer yet. And so on.
The system would never reach equilibrium, but would continue warming to infinity (if such a thing as infinite temperature existed). It would soon destroy itself from all this extra energy that is coming from nowhere.
That is why NET heat transfer is always only from hot to cold. Anything else leads to violations of basic physical laws.
"Given you login to Amazon using your e-mail address..."
No, you're missing the point. This is how these hackers work, more or less:
1) They get your account information from one source. Preferably with password (as they did from Kickstarter).
2) They try that password on the various accounts they have information for. They can also try to brute-force your passwords, or use "social engineering" to get the password for an account or change it to one of their own.
3) Profit.
So, yeah... it can be damaging to even just have the name of your Amazon account.
"Ummmm.... no, Amazon stores your Amazon acount info. KS doesn't even store whole credit card numbers."
Um, yes. In order to actually operate a Kickstarter project, you are required to give them details of an Amazon account. They only accept and transfer money via Amazon.
You don't give them your password. But the other account details are more pieces of your personal puzzle that thieves can use to try to access various account(s) of yours.
"I will contend that a majority of persistent "trolls" would not necessarily answer on a survey that they enjoy trolling. "
Yes, exactly. This study was only about people who admitted to being trolls. My guess is that the majority of people who troll intentionally would not admit to it when asked. I could be wrong, but that's my guess.
So this correlation is not between "the dark tetrad" and trolls, but between that tedrad and people who freely admit they're trolls. I have seen nothing to indicate that the numbers would be even remotely the same for the majority (I think) of trolls who did not admit it.
If you want to ignore its fictional world, fine. But if you want to analyze its economics (no matter how unlikely you think they are), then you have to analyze what they are in that fictional world, not what they are out here.
And regardless of how unlikely you judge it to be, in that world they do not have an economy of scarcity. They have an economy of abundance, which works according to completely different rules.
(By the way: in that world, replicators are everyday devices, like microwaves are today. They are not confined to starships.)
On the contrary, the "meta-story" is changed a great deal. Given a choice, I would far rather people be scientifically literate than English-literate. (As long as they are basically literate to begin with.)
Mistaking one word for another that has only one letter difference is a FAR lesser error than, for example, mistaking Creationism for real science.
Further, I would say don't learn PHP, unless you are just studying the basic principles of how Web applications work.
I'm not saying any one language is perfect. But PHP is primitive and has a collection of built-in methods with woefully inconsistent syntax (parameters). Personally I consider it less of a "language", than a hodgepodge of inconsistent utility functions. You learn PHP not via the principles of its design, if any, but merely by memorizing the functions you need and the parameters they accept. Also, object-orientation was tacked on long after PHP had become a thing, and the language shows it.
People will tell you that there is a huge installed base of PHP, with lots of jobs for PHP programmers, and that's true. But that happens in the evolution of any successful language: it becomes popular, it develops an established base, lots of useful things are built with it. THEN, when something better comes along, all the good jobs are still with the old language... for a while. But only for a while.
"With tidal force locking, I'd expect the edges to be rather uninhabitable too, and the center that's facing the sun comparatively hot."
This is a point OP does not make sufficiently. While it says tidal forces would be stronger, that's only when the planet is young. Eventually, when it stops spinning ("sidereal rotation"), there would no longer be any oceanic "tide" at all, presuming an ocean in the first place.
"In fact, we don't even need to hypothesize: In situations where supply starts to increase, particularly when it increases to the point where everybody who is remotely anybody can have some for pocket change, you virtually always see the creation of additional 'tiers' of artificially scarce versions. "
You don't understand the whole concept here. You are talking about increased supply, but the whole background of your argument is bases on an economy of scarcity.
The "Star Trek" economy, there is no scarcity. It is an economy of abundance, which is a whole different ball game. A hyperabundance of free energy, together with replicators, means physical scarcity simply does not exist. There is no way to create an "artificial scarcity" because people could make as much of the "scarce" thing as they want, any time they want.
As OP states, the current loan system has driven up tuition horrendously, because the money is (to a degree) government-guaranteed and government-organized and in some cases government-supplied.
This proposal does not address this. In fact, it is likely to make it worse. The money isn't just government-guaranteed loans, but actual government money brought in through taxes. What is to prevent not just the same, but accelerated tuition inflation?
The reason this is a bad idea is that it doesn't address the underlying problem: the inflated cost of higher education. It merely subsidizes the cost via taxes.
"so you are one of those people that think that if you append "on a phone" to any patent it becomes unique."
Of course not. That's not the point at all.
There are two issues at hand here: design patent and utility patent. GP was referring to the design, not utility patents.
But since smartphones and digital picture frames are clearly two completely different kinds of devices, consumers with half a brain could never confuse them, so there is no design patent issue.
It has nothing to do with "on a phone" per se. It has only to do with being different kinds of devices.
Slashdot Mirror
"No, they use Amazon PAYMENTS, which while requiring an Amazon account, does not need the originating site to know it."
No shit, Sherlock. I was talking about the person who had the kickstarter project (the payee), not the people making payments. I said so.
"depending on the provider you don't get a new ip address when do those things either. from my limited experiments with Comcast and Time Warner they give the same IP address to the same Mac address every time."
Depending on the setup, this is typically done via the DHCP lease time. The "lease time" is the amount of time a DHCP address will remain assigned to a client if unused. Give accounts a long lease time, and you USUALLY will get your old IP address back when you go back online. But it isn't universally true.
I've found that my IP address has changed about once a year, give or take.
"Apparently Americans can't count, either."
I replied about the 2-letter thing yesterday, but for some reason it didn't go though.
"I told you what I think happens to that 10 Joules. By the first law of thermodynamics it doesn't just disappear so what happens to it?"
Yes, I know you told me but that doesn't happen. It would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
If T is the source and T0 is the other plate, then the cooler plate absorbs some radiative heat from the source... so far fine. Let the system reach equilibrium, with the source radiatively emitting its constant 100 W/m^2, right? Just so we have a known starting point. (The units we are working with are irradiance (in), or radiative emittance (out), which are W/m^2, not Joules.) We know thermal equilibrium does exist and that real-world systems eventually reach equilibrium.
So we're saying that the plate has absorbed some heat from the source. Enough to emit 10 W/m^2 itself. Also just fine.
But remember we are at equilibrium. If the source (which is the ONLY source in our system, remember) absorbs then re-emits 10 W/m^2 to make a total of 110 W/m^2, it is going to heat the plate to an even warmer temperature. And the plate would then kick that back to the source making it warmer yet. And so on.
The system would never reach equilibrium, but would continue warming to infinity (if such a thing as infinite temperature existed). It would soon destroy itself from all this extra energy that is coming from nowhere.
That is why NET heat transfer is always only from hot to cold. Anything else leads to violations of basic physical laws.
"Except they never make doomsday apostrophe films!"
Well, maybe not doomsday, but I'm up for an apostrophe disaster movie.
Like the story about how apostrophes breed so prolifically they begin to show up in all kinds of words where they don't belong.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Better than giant spiders, and more realistic too.
If they can make it with a crispy crust, and still have it last for 3 years, I'm in.
I've eaten quite a few MREs and my opinion, too, is that they're really not bad.
Of course I can see that having to eat them day after day for a long period can change one's attitude.
"Given you login to Amazon using your e-mail address..."
No, you're missing the point. This is how these hackers work, more or less:
1) They get your account information from one source. Preferably with password (as they did from Kickstarter).
2) They try that password on the various accounts they have information for. They can also try to brute-force your passwords, or use "social engineering" to get the password for an account or change it to one of their own.
3) Profit.
So, yeah... it can be damaging to even just have the name of your Amazon account.
The iWatch is intended solely for the use of the NSA.
Why else would they call it that?
"Ummmm.... no, Amazon stores your Amazon acount info. KS doesn't even store whole credit card numbers."
Um, yes. In order to actually operate a Kickstarter project, you are required to give them details of an Amazon account. They only accept and transfer money via Amazon.
You don't give them your password. But the other account details are more pieces of your personal puzzle that thieves can use to try to access various account(s) of yours.
Easy to understand. He just had hip replacement surgery.
Kickstarter stores information about Amazon accounts and the like, too. This could be pretty serious.
AND, they should be held legally responsible. Really, as a society we have to start doing that.
"I will contend that a majority of persistent "trolls" would not necessarily answer on a survey that they enjoy trolling. "
Yes, exactly. This study was only about people who admitted to being trolls. My guess is that the majority of people who troll intentionally would not admit to it when asked. I could be wrong, but that's my guess.
So this correlation is not between "the dark tetrad" and trolls, but between that tedrad and people who freely admit they're trolls. I have seen nothing to indicate that the numbers would be even remotely the same for the majority (I think) of trolls who did not admit it.
This is the greatest short essay I've seen on /. in a while. Kudos.
"Tidal forces don't need an ocean. Reply to This Share"
Correct. But a tide does. I did make the distinction, even if I didn't put it as well as I could have.
There will always be scarcity.
It's a frigging science fiction series.
If you want to ignore its fictional world, fine. But if you want to analyze its economics (no matter how unlikely you think they are), then you have to analyze what they are in that fictional world, not what they are out here.
And regardless of how unlikely you judge it to be, in that world they do not have an economy of scarcity. They have an economy of abundance, which works according to completely different rules.
(By the way: in that world, replicators are everyday devices, like microwaves are today. They are not confined to starships.)
"Assuming no large satellite or the inhabitable world being a satellite or twin planet system."
Yes, good point.
"the fact that the car was a Tesla is pretty much irrelevant"
Agreed. I know of a fire that happened in a pickup truck because the head of a small screw broke off and got caught between two wires behind the dash.
"If you have the good sense to see the meta-story, it's unchanged: "Americans are dumb"."
As Isaac Asimov famously wrote, Wrong is Relative.
On the contrary, the "meta-story" is changed a great deal. Given a choice, I would far rather people be scientifically literate than English-literate. (As long as they are basically literate to begin with.)
Mistaking one word for another that has only one letter difference is a FAR lesser error than, for example, mistaking Creationism for real science.
"Just learn them."
Further, I would say don't learn PHP, unless you are just studying the basic principles of how Web applications work.
I'm not saying any one language is perfect. But PHP is primitive and has a collection of built-in methods with woefully inconsistent syntax (parameters). Personally I consider it less of a "language", than a hodgepodge of inconsistent utility functions. You learn PHP not via the principles of its design, if any, but merely by memorizing the functions you need and the parameters they accept. Also, object-orientation was tacked on long after PHP had become a thing, and the language shows it.
People will tell you that there is a huge installed base of PHP, with lots of jobs for PHP programmers, and that's true. But that happens in the evolution of any successful language: it becomes popular, it develops an established base, lots of useful things are built with it. THEN, when something better comes along, all the good jobs are still with the old language... for a while. But only for a while.
"With tidal force locking, I'd expect the edges to be rather uninhabitable too, and the center that's facing the sun comparatively hot."
This is a point OP does not make sufficiently. While it says tidal forces would be stronger, that's only when the planet is young. Eventually, when it stops spinning ("sidereal rotation"), there would no longer be any oceanic "tide" at all, presuming an ocean in the first place.
"In fact, we don't even need to hypothesize: In situations where supply starts to increase, particularly when it increases to the point where everybody who is remotely anybody can have some for pocket change, you virtually always see the creation of additional 'tiers' of artificially scarce versions. "
You don't understand the whole concept here. You are talking about increased supply, but the whole background of your argument is bases on an economy of scarcity.
The "Star Trek" economy, there is no scarcity. It is an economy of abundance, which is a whole different ball game. A hyperabundance of free energy, together with replicators, means physical scarcity simply does not exist. There is no way to create an "artificial scarcity" because people could make as much of the "scarce" thing as they want, any time they want.
"Use some common sense."
Okay, here's some common sense:
As OP states, the current loan system has driven up tuition horrendously, because the money is (to a degree) government-guaranteed and government-organized and in some cases government-supplied.
This proposal does not address this. In fact, it is likely to make it worse. The money isn't just government-guaranteed loans, but actual government money brought in through taxes. What is to prevent not just the same, but accelerated tuition inflation?
The reason this is a bad idea is that it doesn't address the underlying problem: the inflated cost of higher education. It merely subsidizes the cost via taxes.
"so you are one of those people that think that if you append "on a phone" to any patent it becomes unique."
Of course not. That's not the point at all.
There are two issues at hand here: design patent and utility patent. GP was referring to the design, not utility patents.
But since smartphones and digital picture frames are clearly two completely different kinds of devices, consumers with half a brain could never confuse them, so there is no design patent issue.
It has nothing to do with "on a phone" per se. It has only to do with being different kinds of devices.
"What purpose would it serve for the NSA to brick a bunch of phoneS at one time?"
Why do you assume it would have to be the NSA?