What you see on your screen may be fake, and what the bank sees you type may be fake too. The only thing that may not be faked are your identification to the bank, when using one-time-pad.
The obvious solution, which is too deep for bankers and judges, is to secure all the necessary information.
In practice this means having something looking like a calculator which shows each transaction, having cryptographic secure two-way communication to the bank via the net, and being tamperproof. A sort of two-way code calculator.
The chlorine from CFCs are supposedly effective at destroying the ozone layer. But what about the humongous amount of chlorine from salt in the seawater, that gets into the atmosphere from wave froth? I would think that was much more.
How would you match an amount to a product, especially if more than one product is purchased? Many customers pay different amounts for the same product, how will they factor this in?
So, the incentive is NOT to do good research or make good inventions, but instead make stuff that looks like research and inventions to please bosses, and hoard the good stuff for oneself, in the unlikely case one might profit on it later.
Making sun light hotter than the Sun is possible by using a concentrator with a high index of refraction, such as sapphire. This is allowed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics because light is reflected, spread, and lost outside the concentrated zone, thus increasing the total entropy.
I worked in finance, as I thought it was better than being unemployed. Being unemployed again, I am not so sure it is worse. My pay in finance was much lower than any other engineering job I had.
I hope I get these fast and sloppy calculations og parabola size right:
About 300 km distance, and a WiFi can go about 100m, making it necessary with a 3000^2 amplification, which is 140 dB. The frequency of 2.4 GHz gives a wavelength of about 0.1m, giving a parabolic diameter of 0.1m*3000 = 300m. As big as the Eiffel tower.
However, with some electronic signal amplification, stronger signals, cooling of components, and similar, perhaps this could be decreased to 30m. Perhaps 3m if there were parabolas at both ends.
Instead of a parabola, one could use diffraction gratings on a 30m big plate, or aluminium foil on a mountain side because this is much easier and cheaper to make.
Mountains are precisely where there are lots of connectivity, both electrical and wireless, because thats where transmission towers are located, and typically at the best spots too.
However, it is perfectly possible to do it without such a tower, or beside one. Just make 2 radio links; one from a nearby city, to the mountain, and one from the mountain to Libya. Use a generator to generate power!
That just a few Libyans have internet is an advantage, because there would be less interference, because fewer will be at the focusing spot of a big parabola on the mountain. If a parabola is big enough, it is not necessary with a parabola on the other end. I am not sure how big it has to be yet, but those exist, and can perhaps be lent, or made in a hurry.
Experience can make for a MUCH better programmer. But neither bosses nor younger programmers can tell the difference. Only a good programmer can make simple and understandable programs. The problem with this is that they make programming look easy, and thus get less respect and status, even though their real productivity is high as measured in problems actually solved, but lower as measured in the stupid measures of lines of code or amount of work done.
But the individual variation I have seen between programmers is much bigger than the variation due to age. Most programmers I have worked with have negative real productivity, making a mess that slows down other programmers.
Thanks for telling me a little more about the book.
I have done deep game theoretical analyses for some years, and gotten some interesting results. One of them is that if one appears to be on the losing side, one can decrease the chance of that by making the game more random by running into more complicated fields of game space.
Wether those fields exist or not depends strongly on the end game, and in Go there seems to me likely to be the possibility of impenetrable almost infinite thickets. I do not know yet if that really is the truth, but there are some powerful hints of that, like John Tromps work in the direction making Go boards that are universal computers, and in the construction of infinite draw situation patterns.
The upshot of this is that endgames of almost maximally strong Go players may be almost infinitely long and complicated.
Go is not a game because it does not have rules that are clearly interpretable, except the new Tromp/Taylor rules. One sign of this is that Japanese monks have for about 400 hundred years quarreled about how certain patterns should be interpreted.
When I started to learn the game, I was told that it was exceedingly simple, but learned that there was a thick book of how to interpret patterns, which obviously is not simple. And after playing it a little, and thinking about it, it became apparent to me that there were end game effects that were simply ignored. The Japanese versus Chinese "rules" give very different endgames, but the practice is to simply ignore that and pretend there is no problem. One just stops when the players agree that the rest of the game would be obvious and boring, without that necessarily being true.
When it is not even possible to analyze parts of games then true optimal play regresses to quarreling about it, which is precisely what the Japanese tradition has done for at least some hundred years. Robert Jasiek has made the only consistent interpretation of the Japanese "rules", and it is somewhat insane to read, with 3 levels of recursion. It means that instead of there just being an ordinary game tree, the rules at each node in the game tree are determined by hypothetical game trees at these nodes, and the same goes for the hypothetical game trees. Gaaahrgle!
Those programming Go players typically do statistics on games played by humans instead of having a scoring function, or they use the Tromp/Taylor rules.
So Go is riddled with quarrels and pretense. Not a game in practice. More like politics, or Zen.
| You cannot simply add the dimensions, it | depends on how you integrate the image data | together. Us people who don't know very much | call this integration "3D reconstruction".
1. The X axis on the light sensors. 2. The Y axis on the light sensors. 3. The radius of the cameras from the top of the dome. 4. The angle of the cameras from the top of the dome.
| "The image is 3D" - do you mean the real world | is 3D ? The image, as you put it, is a | projection from 3D onto a 2D plane and is most | definitely 2D.
The light reflected from a scene is 3D. If I know the light in a 3D volume, I can calculate it forwards and backwards in time.
The same goes for light passing through a plane during some time. Plane is 2D, while time is 1D.
So 3D is enough to represent all information in light. 4D is therefore a waste.
| Humans possess a stereoscopic vision system, | each eye is capturing a 2D image at any moment | in time. I expect you would call that a 4D | vision system ?
I would call that stereoscopic vision. It is just 2 times 2D.
| And the concept of Depth from Focus is not | your idea at all, it has been around for a very | long time.
I do not believe you. You are welcome to disprove me by showing an example of someone that have done 3D from a depth change movie.
| Your other idea involving "somehow" doing | something cannot be considered prior art.
Yes it can. I have worked enough with patents to have seen it done.
| In the grand scheme of things an invention has | to be realisable.
To me it is obvious that it is realisable. I better do it. I had no idea that this concept which I find so simple and obvious is so incomprehensible and unfathomable to slightly intelligent people.
Slashdot Mirror
What you see on your screen may be fake, and what the bank sees you type may be fake too.
The only thing that may not be faked are your identification to the bank, when using one-time-pad.
The obvious solution, which is too deep for bankers and judges, is to secure all the necessary information.
In practice this means having something looking like a calculator which shows each transaction,
having cryptographic secure two-way communication to the bank via the net, and being tamperproof.
A sort of two-way code calculator.
A proof that correlation is evidence of causation,
even though correlation does not imply causation:
http://kim.oyhus.no/CorrelationAndCausation.html
The chlorine from CFCs are supposedly effective at destroying the ozone layer.
But what about the humongous amount of chlorine from salt in the seawater,
that gets into the atmosphere from wave froth? I would think that was much
more.
How would you match an amount to a product, especially if more than one product is purchased? Many customers pay different amounts for the same product, how will they factor this in?
I use least square matrix methods for this.
The companies dont want inventions then,
since they give no incentive to invent.
What do they want then?
I guess its pure primate domination, camouflaged as productivity.
So, the incentive is NOT to do good research or make good inventions,
but instead make stuff that looks like research and inventions to please bosses,
and hoard the good stuff for oneself, in the unlikely case one might profit on it later.
Making sun light hotter than the Sun is possible by using a concentrator with a high index of refraction, such as sapphire.
This is allowed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics because light is reflected, spread, and lost outside the concentrated zone, thus increasing the total entropy.
Kim0+
Put the invention on ...to share with the world, and spite GM!
http://freegreentech.org/
I can make two separate models that end up with the same result. They both can't be right.
The simpler model is more likely,
because there is less room for error in it.
This principle is called Ockhams razor.
For each extra letter in the description of the more complex model,
its probability about halves.
I worked in finance, as I thought it was better than being unemployed.
Being unemployed again, I am not so sure it is worse.
My pay in finance was much lower than any other engineering job I had.
Kim0+, Physicist.
I hope I get these fast and sloppy calculations og parabola size right:
About 300 km distance, and a WiFi can go about 100m, making it necessary with a 3000^2 amplification, which is 140 dB.
The frequency of 2.4 GHz gives a wavelength of about 0.1m, giving a parabolic diameter of 0.1m*3000 = 300m. As big as the Eiffel tower.
However, with some electronic signal amplification, stronger signals, cooling of components, and similar, perhaps this could be decreased to 30m.
Perhaps 3m if there were parabolas at both ends.
Instead of a parabola, one could use diffraction gratings on a 30m big plate, or aluminium foil on a mountain side because this is much easier and cheaper to make.
So I think it is feasible.
Mountains are precisely where there are lots of connectivity, both electrical and wireless, because thats where transmission towers are located, and typically at the best spots too.
However, it is perfectly possible to do it without such a tower, or beside one. Just make 2 radio links; one from a nearby city, to the mountain, and one from the mountain to Libya. Use a generator to generate power!
That just a few Libyans have internet is an advantage, because there would be less interference, because fewer will be at the focusing spot of a big parabola on the mountain. If a parabola is big enough, it is not necessary with a parabola on the other end. I am not sure how big it has to be yet, but those exist, and can perhaps be lent, or made in a hurry.
I did work 4 years with radio transmission stuff.
Experience can make for a MUCH better programmer. But neither bosses nor younger programmers can tell the difference.
Only a good programmer can make simple and understandable programs. The problem with this is that they make programming look easy, and thus get less respect and status, even though their real productivity is high as measured in problems actually solved, but lower as measured in the stupid measures of lines of code or amount of work done.
But the individual variation I have seen between programmers is much bigger than the variation due to age. Most programmers I have worked with have negative real productivity, making a mess that slows down other programmers.
Measuring productivity in lines of code is as stupid as measuring health by how much a surgeon cuts.
You have no rule about winning.
Kim0+
My mental image is a rabbit running into a thicket to avoid a fox, or eagle.
The Norwegian young chessmaster Magnus Karlsen is said to rely on making the game so complex that only he understands it.
Kim0+
That makes Go a great game.
If so, you should go and play some art.
Kim0+
I could not agree more.
Kim0+
Thanks for telling me a little more about the book.
I have done deep game theoretical analyses for some years, and gotten some interesting results. One of them is that if one appears to be on the losing side, one can decrease the chance of that by making the game more random by running into more complicated fields of game space.
Wether those fields exist or not depends strongly on the end game, and in Go there seems to me likely to be the possibility of impenetrable almost infinite thickets. I do not know yet if that really is the truth, but there are some powerful hints of that, like John Tromps work in the direction making Go boards that are universal computers, and in the construction of infinite draw situation patterns.
The upshot of this is that endgames of almost maximally strong Go players may be almost infinitely long and complicated.
Go is not a game because it does not have rules that are clearly interpretable, except the new Tromp/Taylor rules.
One sign of this is that Japanese monks have for about 400 hundred years quarreled about how certain patterns should be interpreted.
When I started to learn the game, I was told that it was exceedingly simple, but learned that there was a thick book of how to interpret patterns, which obviously is not simple. And after playing it a little, and thinking about it, it became apparent to me that there were end game effects that were simply ignored. The Japanese versus Chinese "rules" give very different endgames, but the practice is to simply ignore that and pretend there is no problem. One just stops when the players agree that the rest of the game would be obvious and boring, without that necessarily being true.
Robert Jasiek has done extensive analysis of Go, and seems to be the only one actually understanding the game as it is played in practice.
Here are a short list of the major mistakes that Go rulesets contain.
Here are lots of short analyses of different scoring methods.
Here are some game patterns that give different problems in different rulesets.
When it is not even possible to analyze parts of games then true optimal play regresses to quarreling about it, which is precisely what the Japanese tradition has done for at least some hundred years. Robert Jasiek has made the only consistent interpretation of the Japanese "rules", and it is somewhat insane to read, with 3 levels of recursion. It means that instead of there just being an ordinary game tree, the rules at each node in the game tree are determined by hypothetical game trees at these nodes, and the same goes for the hypothetical game trees. Gaaahrgle!
Those programming Go players typically do statistics on games played by humans instead of having a scoring function, or they use the Tromp/Taylor rules.
So Go is riddled with quarrels and pretense. Not a game in practice. More like politics, or Zen.
Kim0+
Finally someone who is not an arrogant ignorant, but instead knows something.
And I agree about the /. users.
They seem to have become more of the self righteous idiot kind. They are not useful.
Kim0+
You are confusing dimensions with parameters.
Your argument is therefore invalid.
Kim0+
| You cannot simply add the dimensions, it
| depends on how you integrate the image data
| together. Us people who don't know very much
| call this integration "3D reconstruction".
You misunderstood. There are 4 dimensions to the
data captured by the camera:
http://images.gizmag.com/hero/3d360camera.jpg
1. The X axis on the light sensors.
2. The Y axis on the light sensors.
3. The radius of the cameras from the top of the dome.
4. The angle of the cameras from the top of the dome.
| "The image is 3D" - do you mean the real world
| is 3D ? The image, as you put it, is a
| projection from 3D onto a 2D plane and is most
| definitely 2D.
The light reflected from a scene is 3D.
If I know the light in a 3D volume,
I can calculate it forwards and backwards in time.
The same goes for light passing through a plane
during some time. Plane is 2D, while time is 1D.
So 3D is enough to represent all information in light. 4D is therefore a waste.
| Humans possess a stereoscopic vision system,
| each eye is capturing a 2D image at any moment
| in time. I expect you would call that a 4D
| vision system ?
I would call that stereoscopic vision.
It is just 2 times 2D.
| And the concept of Depth from Focus is not
| your idea at all, it has been around for a very
| long time.
I do not believe you.
You are welcome to disprove me by showing an
example of someone that have done 3D from a
depth change movie.
| Your other idea involving "somehow" doing
| something cannot be considered prior art.
Yes it can. I have worked enough with patents
to have seen it done.
| In the grand scheme of things an invention has
| to be realisable.
To me it is obvious that it is realisable.
I better do it. I had no idea that this concept
which I find so simple and obvious is so
incomprehensible and unfathomable to slightly
intelligent people.
Kim0+
No. A video wall have the LCDs in the same plane as the LCD planes, so that is just re-use of dimensions.
The only Quantum Physics in LCDs are their polarizing filters and the transistors. (And LEDs in the newer ones.)
Stereoscopic images are not the same as 3D.
The difference is 2 pictures versus a line of pictures.
A 2D array of 2D cameras give 4D.
Here is a picture of it:
http://images.gizmag.com/hero/3d360camera.jpg
The flaw is an inefficiency of about 100 due.