Sorry, this is vaguely true, but dead wrong in practice. Any block of unencrypted data received successfully could have been encrypted byte-for-byte. Only key negotiation requires additional data, and this is a truly miniscule amount relative to a video feed of any resolution (assuming a reasonable renegotiation period)
Or another cool idea: create a sustained cylindrical shell of low pressure above the craft. Say, you have a ring of high power lasers pointed upward on top of the craft. They fire upward, incinerating all the air for a ways. Air on the inside & outside of the shell rushes to fill the void, and this gives a zone of low pressure above.
Although, I suppose inducing some kind of vortex motion - akin to a tornado - in the overhead cylinder would be the most energy efficient way to develop the zone of low pressure. Hrm.
Perhaps with the flange ring you could somehow tune your emitter to a frequency that the flange material can reflect, thus keeping emissions reflecting within the space and maximizing the efficiency of expended energy.
Ah, how about the craft is round like a frisbee, with a raised flange/edge around the tip. Laser emitters can be around the ring directed toward the center, and where they all cross the air is incinerated. Now you only need to beam a single source of energy to your craft, which may make it a little more practical.
For instance you could have an array of massive lasers on Earth projecting beams that cross just above the craft, incinerating the air and causing a space of low pressure. But you'd likely expend an enormous amount of energy and also have the added feature of accidentally incinerating your craft.
Lighter than air of equivalent volumetric displacement. If only there was a way to displace a large volume of space, bonded to a craft, on-demand. (without expending large sums of energy nor causing unproductive accelerations from momentum)
What is the difference between experience and limited experience? I've been programming off & on for about 15 years in a number of languages, but never in a salaried position. I've dealt with a wide breadth of concepts. I don't know if I would describe myself as having "limited" experience or not.
It's a shame AMD cut address base & length from data descriptor functionality when they released their x64 architecture. It seemed well-fit for allowing fast context-switching of sandboxed components without having to deal with slow TLB invalidation. It also would have been easier to take advantage of in a 64-bit address space, as it required chopping up the linear address space into fixed segments, and 4GB was a little tight. Hopefully we'll see more useful mainstream CPU primitives to achieve high-performance, high-scale sandboxing. I am interested to see how these instructions would be implemented at the user-level.
Take it back, indeed. The corporations aren't headless monsters, they do have directors and motives. Any given corporation can be targeted, and its' actions affected with the right approach. This could involve piles of cash to buy your way in, or bending motives in a field-centric way. Either/both avenues can be followed simply with hordes of average-joe participants.
An organization of the willing, coordinating efforts, identifying & focusing on the most critical/effectual corporations, would seem the logical approach. Any takers?
Qubits works because of quantum mechanics, that is, because the equations are as they are. That have nothing to do with the interpretation, which is how we understand the equations. Interpretations are not scientific, as they make exactly the same predictions as the underlying model, but are more complex. They are not really needed, but the human mind doesn't like thinking in equations, it prefers to have something that behave like something physical, so we like having them.
The equations are derived through observation of physical reality. The equations are a construct of our minds that allow recognized patterns to provide predictions of physical reality. The interpretations are arguably more accurate than the equation, as they can possibly identify conditions the math has yet to be 'adjusted' to account for. To discount the source of these equations - our perceptions of the universe - is foolish.
But the government doesn't simply print money. The money has to be placed into circulation somehow. There's not some magical teller window at the Federal Reserve Bank where I can request heaps of cash for free.
I know the Fed loans cash to banks, but at extremely low rates - the Discount rate I believe. So banks have access to really cheap loans, and they make money with higher-interest loans to everyone else. I think the Fed has rules that a bank can only receive Discount loans if they have some huge amount of money in some way - paper or liquid assets, I'm not sure. And I believe the Fed's website says any interest earned by them goes back into the Treasury. I don't know what happens when these banks default on their loans - or if they can. This is all over my pay grade, not my trade, etc.
I wonder what's to stop any large/rich organization from fronting as a bank just to get access to cheap cash? Like wall street gamblers, venture capitalists, drug cartels, axis of evil states, etc.
Then there's government bonds, personal and corporate taxes, tariffs, etc. Regardless of all the flows of money, the US government is dishing out loads of cash to banks just in interest from our massive debt. Wonder why we never hear about the public pushing Congress to pass some kind of mandate to force at least a balanced budget, if not a surplus to start widdling down the national debt? The media conglomerates only seem to report on Marijuana, Marriage, or some other crap that is supposedly more important in the mind of the average American. Forget separation between church and state, we need to be concerned with a separation between the media and the voting public.
Nobody can just "make" money. It's taken/received from someone else. The US government takes on debt to dish out money to defense contractors during war. Those debts are then slowly repaid, with compounding interest. Repaid with monies taken from US taxpayers.
Now, how the amount of available funds on the planet grows as the population and inflation grow over time, beats me..
Sure, it's a computable problem. We have the scientific knowledge concerning the EM spectrum coming from the Sun and reflecting from the Earth. We have spectral absorptance profiles for all components of the atmosphere, and we have density & composition profiles of the atmosphere at all altitudes. It shouldn't be hard to calculate the additional amount of heat trapped with a change in CO2 concentrations. There is a question of what else changes on the surface of the Earth as these conditions arise, and how do they also affect temperatures. More calculations, dependent on previous calculations.. the margins of error from the assumptions do start to amass. It would be interesting to see all the calculations laid out in a public forum for scientists & engineers to deliberate in an open-source fashion.
As more of the most influential dependencies are modeled in, the accuracy improves, and predictions becomes more dependable. The key is to include the most relevant variables. Sure, everything affects everything to a degree, but most things can be safely ignored. It is possible for a system to be quite volatile, to the point where we can't predict the future well even if we think we can - but, in that case, we have no control over the environment, and things will either work out or be doomed, but we can't do anything about it. Perhaps its more sensible to operate with a possibly flawed model rather than with none at all.
I agree with the relative effects of cost vs returns with regards to lighting and hvac, but your specifics I don't agree with. CFLs are more cost effective than incandescent now, they have been for years. Upfront costs: CFL $3, incandescent $1. Say CFL uses 33W less. 30 hours = 1kWh. In 7 days, that'd be just over 4 hours/day. 52 wks/year = 52kWh saved/yr. @ only $0.10/kWh, that's $5.20/yr savings. My electric costs are about 50% higher than that.
Also, heat pumps have been advancing the past decade, to the point where the seasonal operational costs are on par with natural gas for most of the northern half of the US. And they're still improving.. Combine that with solar electric reducing kWh costs, and it makes sense to go all electric.
As to the original argument, solar panel technology is still evolving. New plants will be built regardless. And the US federal government is already dishing out money to prop up solar manufacturers, what's to stop them doing the same in 5 or 10 years, after the technology is further along, and after we're all enjoying cheap solar electricity from our aging Chinese panels? The only argument I can see is the government is afraid the funding won't be available in ten years, with the rise of the tea partiers and changes in the global economy.
It's called law and order for a reason. Drug use encourages a chaotic populace, it pushes society away from order. This is the foremost reason for the illegality of drugs. If this is not obvious to you, I encourage you to indulge your curiosity and smoke some weed, drop some acid, etc. It will all become clear to you.
Precisely! It's not like we're dealing with manufacturing automobiles, with nearly countless parts and exorbitant market entry costs.
This seems like a brain-dead move on the part of Washington. Solar energy provides cheap power, power to run countless things used by people in our local economies. Less money spent on utility bills is more money spent on local goods and services. Instead, all this will do is increase the amount of money Americans spend on coal to be mined and burned here - a small boost to jobs that will ultimately crumble because of global warming and alternative, green energy.
How is a bank that is 100% controlled by the federal government, with all profits returned to the US Treasury, a "private" bank?
This is the same response I gave to the same statement here on Slashdot a few years ago:
I've always assumed the Fed was a legit organization, but this statement intrigues me. It assumes the Fed makes a profit. What if the Fed didn't profit, but rather lost money? Wouldn't that mean they handed out a bunch of money without getting paid back? Sounds like someone still profited..
And how do they determine what is profit? Perhaps the Fed earns 5 billion in interest from legit loans to banks. They also drop 5 billion in loans to certain unnamed parties but the recipients go bankrupt and the money isn't repaid. Did the Fed break even? Somebody walked away with 5 billion..
Also, if the Fed is handing out loans at a lower interest rate than the market, wouldn't that put the recipients (banks) at a consistent advantage to every other borrower (individuals)?
So even if the Fed isn't technically private, its operations may be private enough to allow shady practices.. with billions/trillions of your money.
If it gets commercialized like broadband internet access, then expect a few large corporations to buy up all the automated cars and lease them to customers at exorbitant tiered prices. You pay more, you get to drive more at faster speeds.
I can't believe people argue the right to defend your life with a gun. Is it the gun people find offensive, or should we all only be permitted to run away when someone is trying to kill us? Hopefully you're quick on your feet.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, this is vaguely true, but dead wrong in practice. Any block of unencrypted data received successfully could have been encrypted byte-for-byte. Only key negotiation requires additional data, and this is a truly miniscule amount relative to a video feed of any resolution (assuming a reasonable renegotiation period)
Added benefit: clean revisions.
Or another cool idea: create a sustained cylindrical shell of low pressure above the craft. Say, you have a ring of high power lasers pointed upward on top of the craft. They fire upward, incinerating all the air for a ways. Air on the inside & outside of the shell rushes to fill the void, and this gives a zone of low pressure above.
Although, I suppose inducing some kind of vortex motion - akin to a tornado - in the overhead cylinder would be the most energy efficient way to develop the zone of low pressure. Hrm.
Perhaps with the flange ring you could somehow tune your emitter to a frequency that the flange material can reflect, thus keeping emissions reflecting within the space and maximizing the efficiency of expended energy.
Ah, how about the craft is round like a frisbee, with a raised flange/edge around the tip. Laser emitters can be around the ring directed toward the center, and where they all cross the air is incinerated. Now you only need to beam a single source of energy to your craft, which may make it a little more practical.
For instance you could have an array of massive lasers on Earth projecting beams that cross just above the craft, incinerating the air and causing a space of low pressure. But you'd likely expend an enormous amount of energy and also have the added feature of accidentally incinerating your craft.
Lighter than air of equivalent volumetric displacement. If only there was a way to displace a large volume of space, bonded to a craft, on-demand. (without expending large sums of energy nor causing unproductive accelerations from momentum)
What is the difference between experience and limited experience? I've been programming off & on for about 15 years in a number of languages, but never in a salaried position. I've dealt with a wide breadth of concepts. I don't know if I would describe myself as having "limited" experience or not.
It's a shame AMD cut address base & length from data descriptor functionality when they released their x64 architecture. It seemed well-fit for allowing fast context-switching of sandboxed components without having to deal with slow TLB invalidation. It also would have been easier to take advantage of in a 64-bit address space, as it required chopping up the linear address space into fixed segments, and 4GB was a little tight. Hopefully we'll see more useful mainstream CPU primitives to achieve high-performance, high-scale sandboxing. I am interested to see how these instructions would be implemented at the user-level.
Now might be a good time to take our world back.
Take it back, indeed. The corporations aren't headless monsters, they do have directors and motives. Any given corporation can be targeted, and its' actions affected with the right approach. This could involve piles of cash to buy your way in, or bending motives in a field-centric way. Either/both avenues can be followed simply with hordes of average-joe participants.
An organization of the willing, coordinating efforts, identifying & focusing on the most critical/effectual corporations, would seem the logical approach. Any takers?
Qubits works because of quantum mechanics, that is, because the equations are as they are. That have nothing to do with the interpretation, which is how we understand the equations. Interpretations are not scientific, as they make exactly the same predictions as the underlying model, but are more complex. They are not really needed, but the human mind doesn't like thinking in equations, it prefers to have something that behave like something physical, so we like having them.
The equations are derived through observation of physical reality. The equations are a construct of our minds that allow recognized patterns to provide predictions of physical reality. The interpretations are arguably more accurate than the equation, as they can possibly identify conditions the math has yet to be 'adjusted' to account for. To discount the source of these equations - our perceptions of the universe - is foolish.
Even as networked printers get more powerful, they often don't support a common interoperable protocol like Postscript or PCL.
Doesn't this statement violate mutual exclusivity?
Sounds ideal. Wouldn't take long to code, nor execute.
They were preparing for High School.
Assuming constant acceleration/deceleration for each half of the trip: .5a(t/2)^2 + .5a(t/2)^2 = 1/4at^2
d =
a = 4d/t^2
NY to LA is 2464 miles
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%5B4*2464miles%2F(60min)%5E2%5D+%2F+32ft%2Fs%5E2
0.13 g for a 60 min trip.
But the government doesn't simply print money. The money has to be placed into circulation somehow. There's not some magical teller window at the Federal Reserve Bank where I can request heaps of cash for free.
I know the Fed loans cash to banks, but at extremely low rates - the Discount rate I believe. So banks have access to really cheap loans, and they make money with higher-interest loans to everyone else. I think the Fed has rules that a bank can only receive Discount loans if they have some huge amount of money in some way - paper or liquid assets, I'm not sure. And I believe the Fed's website says any interest earned by them goes back into the Treasury. I don't know what happens when these banks default on their loans - or if they can. This is all over my pay grade, not my trade, etc.
I wonder what's to stop any large/rich organization from fronting as a bank just to get access to cheap cash? Like wall street gamblers, venture capitalists, drug cartels, axis of evil states, etc.
Then there's government bonds, personal and corporate taxes, tariffs, etc. Regardless of all the flows of money, the US government is dishing out loads of cash to banks just in interest from our massive debt. Wonder why we never hear about the public pushing Congress to pass some kind of mandate to force at least a balanced budget, if not a surplus to start widdling down the national debt? The media conglomerates only seem to report on Marijuana, Marriage, or some other crap that is supposedly more important in the mind of the average American. Forget separation between church and state, we need to be concerned with a separation between the media and the voting public.
Nobody can just "make" money. It's taken/received from someone else. The US government takes on debt to dish out money to defense contractors during war. Those debts are then slowly repaid, with compounding interest. Repaid with monies taken from US taxpayers.
Now, how the amount of available funds on the planet grows as the population and inflation grow over time, beats me..
Sure, it's a computable problem. We have the scientific knowledge concerning the EM spectrum coming from the Sun and reflecting from the Earth. We have spectral absorptance profiles for all components of the atmosphere, and we have density & composition profiles of the atmosphere at all altitudes. It shouldn't be hard to calculate the additional amount of heat trapped with a change in CO2 concentrations. There is a question of what else changes on the surface of the Earth as these conditions arise, and how do they also affect temperatures. More calculations, dependent on previous calculations.. the margins of error from the assumptions do start to amass. It would be interesting to see all the calculations laid out in a public forum for scientists & engineers to deliberate in an open-source fashion.
As more of the most influential dependencies are modeled in, the accuracy improves, and predictions becomes more dependable. The key is to include the most relevant variables. Sure, everything affects everything to a degree, but most things can be safely ignored. It is possible for a system to be quite volatile, to the point where we can't predict the future well even if we think we can - but, in that case, we have no control over the environment, and things will either work out or be doomed, but we can't do anything about it. Perhaps its more sensible to operate with a possibly flawed model rather than with none at all.
I agree with the relative effects of cost vs returns with regards to lighting and hvac, but your specifics I don't agree with. CFLs are more cost effective than incandescent now, they have been for years. Upfront costs: CFL $3, incandescent $1. Say CFL uses 33W less. 30 hours = 1kWh. In 7 days, that'd be just over 4 hours/day. 52 wks/year = 52kWh saved/yr. @ only $0.10/kWh, that's $5.20/yr savings. My electric costs are about 50% higher than that.
Also, heat pumps have been advancing the past decade, to the point where the seasonal operational costs are on par with natural gas for most of the northern half of the US. And they're still improving.. Combine that with solar electric reducing kWh costs, and it makes sense to go all electric.
As to the original argument, solar panel technology is still evolving. New plants will be built regardless. And the US federal government is already dishing out money to prop up solar manufacturers, what's to stop them doing the same in 5 or 10 years, after the technology is further along, and after we're all enjoying cheap solar electricity from our aging Chinese panels? The only argument I can see is the government is afraid the funding won't be available in ten years, with the rise of the tea partiers and changes in the global economy.
It's called law and order for a reason. Drug use encourages a chaotic populace, it pushes society away from order. This is the foremost reason for the illegality of drugs. If this is not obvious to you, I encourage you to indulge your curiosity and smoke some weed, drop some acid, etc. It will all become clear to you.
Precisely! It's not like we're dealing with manufacturing automobiles, with nearly countless parts and exorbitant market entry costs.
This seems like a brain-dead move on the part of Washington. Solar energy provides cheap power, power to run countless things used by people in our local economies. Less money spent on utility bills is more money spent on local goods and services. Instead, all this will do is increase the amount of money Americans spend on coal to be mined and burned here - a small boost to jobs that will ultimately crumble because of global warming and alternative, green energy.
Stupid, stupid federal government.
How is a bank that is 100% controlled by the federal government, with all profits returned to the US Treasury, a "private" bank?
This is the same response I gave to the same statement here on Slashdot a few years ago:
I've always assumed the Fed was a legit organization, but this statement intrigues me. It assumes the Fed makes a profit. What if the Fed didn't profit, but rather lost money? Wouldn't that mean they handed out a bunch of money without getting paid back? Sounds like someone still profited..
And how do they determine what is profit? Perhaps the Fed earns 5 billion in interest from legit loans to banks. They also drop 5 billion in loans to certain unnamed parties but the recipients go bankrupt and the money isn't repaid. Did the Fed break even? Somebody walked away with 5 billion..
Also, if the Fed is handing out loans at a lower interest rate than the market, wouldn't that put the recipients (banks) at a consistent advantage to every other borrower (individuals)?
So even if the Fed isn't technically private, its operations may be private enough to allow shady practices.. with billions/trillions of your money.
If it gets commercialized like broadband internet access, then expect a few large corporations to buy up all the automated cars and lease them to customers at exorbitant tiered prices. You pay more, you get to drive more at faster speeds.
I can't believe people argue the right to defend your life with a gun. Is it the gun people find offensive, or should we all only be permitted to run away when someone is trying to kill us? Hopefully you're quick on your feet.