I think this was unintentionally revealing. It's the feeling of safety and security that Facebook is frantic to defend. Actual safety and security? Well, that's... complicated.
Well, I guess that takes a bit of the sting out of the missed impact opportunity.
If the nucleus really had been 50km in diameter (original estimated maximum), and if it had hit Mars, it would've significantly increased Mars' atmosphere with one blow. I'll confess that I was a bit disappointed when we realized that wasn't going to happen.
A comet this small would still have made an impressive boom, but it would have been perhaps a bit less world-changing.
Apparently I should've leaned less on snark in my original comment.
By mandating central control, you're making so many assumptions -- the central controller is correct, the central controller scales successfully to the maximum traffic level, there is reliable communication at all times between the central controller and every autonomous agent, every autonomous agent correctly reports its position and status to the central controller, every autonomous agent responds correctly to direction from the central controller, and those are just off the top of my head.
I think the odds of getting every one of those elements right are vanishingly small, compared to "each autonomous agent implements collision and congestion avoidance to the best of its ability". This isn't my field, so I may be far, far off base, but I'm honestly not trying to troll here...
Autonomous individuals sometimes do bad things or get into conflicts. The solution is a central, controlling authority that knows what's best for them. A central, controlling authority can always work things out better than autonomous individuals, because it has all information and always knows the best way to act on it.
And, using the average THC content of 5% posted downthread, that means a scrawny 50Kg stoner would have to smoke or ingest 3Kg (six and a half pounds) to risk a 50% chance of death.
No, I'm really not; I'm looking at graphs from references and tutorials, some at a pretty introductory level, some at a more advanced level. None of them are from sites trying to market anything -- unless you're implying that Big Grow Lamp has infiltrated and corrupted biology texts stretching back decades.
You raise interesting points (in other subthreads here) about green light penetrating further into a growing plant, and I'll certainly grant that the absorption curves don't reach zero in the yellow-green range.
I'm not in a position to watch or listen to a video; can you link to any other information about the "ZERO LIGHT growing technology" you mention?
Also, green light is great for plants. Don't let old science fool you. Why do you think an HPS lamp works so well despite about 80% of its visible light output being green and yellow?
When I GIS "photosynthesis spectrum", I see a million different curves, but they all peak in red and violet-through-blue-green. Even if you don't look at emission and absorption curves, just look at a plant. Its leaves are green. That means that it's reflecting more green light relative to other colors. That should be a clue that green light isn't the most efficient choice for feeding plants. (It's not conclusive, of course; nature's paths aren't always optimized for efficiency.)
Why do HPS lamps work so well? I don't know, but here are some possibilities:
They're many times more efficient than incandescent grow lamps, so you get more usable light per watt even if its spectrum isn't ideal.
HPS grow lamps are tweaked to produce more red light.
HPS lamps put out a huge total radiant flux, so they're just brighter than alternatives, in both useful and wasteful wavelengths.
Can you provide some supporting evidence that "green light is great for plants", when it's near the bottom of the photosynthetic absorption spectrum?
And this differs from the average user of every other consumer or business platform in what way, again? I mean, average Windows or Android users may not "think their machine is impervious to viruses", but they seem to "see no issue in" downloading random "music" or "videos" or "software" from even the skankiest sources.
It used to be that a combination of perhaps-somewhat-better security design and low platform population kept Mac users relatively safe even in the face of "average" ignorance and complacency. They're probably still safer than they would be on Windows (perhaps even Android), because they're still a bit of a niche market, but the margin continues to narrow.
Mesh networking, peer-to-peer, power to the decentralized people -- it all sounds great. But some of those people will still be on the side of the government. I wonder how much information one mesh node could accumulate to incriminate other participants? How many of "the people" will be willing to participate in an uprising like this if they know that a government stooge is likely no more than two or three hops away?
There's a long tradition of regulating electrical utilities -- their new-plant construction, their service build-out, and most especially their rates. If connecting single-household solar installations and buying back power from them is imposing an undue burden, and they can prove this, adjust the tariffs accordingly.
But you shouldn't quash an entire emerging industry just to protect an old and established one. Unfortunately, that seems to be one of the main duties of legislatures.
I repeat. It's 3D PRINTING FOR LIFE EXTENSION -- specifically, preserving the life of patients who would otherwise face a fairly quick (and extremely painful) death.
I'm listening for that faint sound of a certain Fark refugee's skull rupturing in the distance.
If this kind of rat experimentation bothers you, and I can't say that it shouldn't, I'd like to ask two follow-up questions.
First, have you ever seen what a cat does when it encounters a rat or a mouse? Cats are predators, but they don't always just swiftly kill and eat their prey. They often toy with it for quite a long time.
Second, having learned about this behavior, are you ready to call for the abolition of cats? I'll promise you that cats torture and kill far more rats worldwide than all scientists put together, and we gain far less from that activity than we do from medical research.
If you oppose animal testing, I can see that as a principled and well-supported stand. But if you aren't willing to go further and call for the end of domestic cat propagation, I'd very much like some insight into your reasoning.
As a chemistry hobbyist, I always wanted one of those big organic-labware sets with pluggable components -- you could build a multi-stage vacuum still, controlled-atmosphere reactor and separator, whatever you wanted -- but true micro- or nano-scale chemistry never seemed as appealing.
By analogy, I always thought playing with discrete components or small-scale logic chips was a lot more engaging than wiring up a microcontroller and loading it with canned or slightly-modified firmware.
On the other hand, you can unquestionably get a lot more done with the canned-complex-parts approach. I'll be fascinated to see where this leads.
So, all these folks who are saying "low-life criminals are the problem, and we need to stop them by whatever means necessary" shouldn't be calling for harsher penalties, but more pervasive surveillance (because the important factor is how likely you are to be caught, not how severe the punishment is).
I remember yelling and waving my arms at some length years ago when I discovered that you could put arbitrary JavaScript into your auction descriptions. Sure, it lets you have cool expanding images and whatnot -- but I can't imagine securing it against attacks that do something like this, or attach event handlers to the controls in the eBay-served sections of the page, or any number of other nefarious things. Everybody told me to calm down and shut up at the time, and my posts on eBay's discussion forum disappeared pretty quickly.
I'm only surprised that it's taken this long for an attack to get even this minimal degree of coverage. (I was going to say "I'm surprised it took this long for someone to implement an attack", but I have no reason to believe that this is the first one.)
I can't possibly hope to "keep up", because you'll always be able to make up random nonsensical claims faster than I can debunk them. Enjoy your perpetual leadership.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this was unintentionally revealing. It's the feeling of safety and security that Facebook is frantic to defend. Actual safety and security? Well, that's... complicated.
Well, I guess that takes a bit of the sting out of the missed impact opportunity.
If the nucleus really had been 50km in diameter (original estimated maximum), and if it had hit Mars, it would've significantly increased Mars' atmosphere with one blow. I'll confess that I was a bit disappointed when we realized that wasn't going to happen.
A comet this small would still have made an impressive boom, but it would have been perhaps a bit less world-changing.
I'd recommend against pushing that highway analogy. It makes it too easy for them to come back with:
"You don't get to drive 150mph on a highway designed for 70mph."
"We need to make sure overweight trucks don't destroy the road surface for the rest of our drivers."
"If everyone drove as much as you do, the roads would be so jammed that nobody would be able to get anywhere."
Each of these points is flawed, but the analogy you posed doesn't do much to help that.
Okay, okay, it's only the top two stories plus one more on the first page, which I guess makes for... 20% SlashDot market share?
2005 called...
Oh my God! Did you warn them? About Beta?
Apparently I should've leaned less on snark in my original comment.
By mandating central control, you're making so many assumptions -- the central controller is correct, the central controller scales successfully to the maximum traffic level, there is reliable communication at all times between the central controller and every autonomous agent, every autonomous agent correctly reports its position and status to the central controller, every autonomous agent responds correctly to direction from the central controller, and those are just off the top of my head.
I think the odds of getting every one of those elements right are vanishingly small, compared to "each autonomous agent implements collision and congestion avoidance to the best of its ability". This isn't my field, so I may be far, far off base, but I'm honestly not trying to troll here...
Autonomous individuals sometimes do bad things or get into conflicts. The solution is a central, controlling authority that knows what's best for them. A central, controlling authority can always work things out better than autonomous individuals, because it has all information and always knows the best way to act on it.
Wow, why hasn't anyone thought of this before?
And, using the average THC content of 5% posted downthread, that means a scrawny 50Kg stoner would have to smoke or ingest 3Kg (six and a half pounds) to risk a 50% chance of death.
So, challenge accepted?
No, I'm really not; I'm looking at graphs from references and tutorials, some at a pretty introductory level, some at a more advanced level. None of them are from sites trying to market anything -- unless you're implying that Big Grow Lamp has infiltrated and corrupted biology texts stretching back decades.
You raise interesting points (in other subthreads here) about green light penetrating further into a growing plant, and I'll certainly grant that the absorption curves don't reach zero in the yellow-green range.
I'm not in a position to watch or listen to a video; can you link to any other information about the "ZERO LIGHT growing technology" you mention?
Also, green light is great for plants. Don't let old science fool you. Why do you think an HPS lamp works so well despite about 80% of its visible light output being green and yellow?
When I GIS "photosynthesis spectrum", I see a million different curves, but they all peak in red and violet-through-blue-green. Even if you don't look at emission and absorption curves, just look at a plant. Its leaves are green. That means that it's reflecting more green light relative to other colors. That should be a clue that green light isn't the most efficient choice for feeding plants. (It's not conclusive, of course; nature's paths aren't always optimized for efficiency.)
Why do HPS lamps work so well? I don't know, but here are some possibilities:
They're many times more efficient than incandescent grow lamps, so you get more usable light per watt even if its spectrum isn't ideal.
HPS grow lamps are tweaked to produce more red light.
HPS lamps put out a huge total radiant flux, so they're just brighter than alternatives, in both useful and wasteful wavelengths.
Can you provide some supporting evidence that "green light is great for plants", when it's near the bottom of the photosynthetic absorption spectrum?
Basically, seems like a large amount of money for a system...
...and, in the "defense" arena, that's what makes the world go around.
And this differs from the average user of every other consumer or business platform in what way, again? I mean, average Windows or Android users may not "think their machine is impervious to viruses", but they seem to "see no issue in" downloading random "music" or "videos" or "software" from even the skankiest sources.
It used to be that a combination of perhaps-somewhat-better security design and low platform population kept Mac users relatively safe even in the face of "average" ignorance and complacency. They're probably still safer than they would be on Windows (perhaps even Android), because they're still a bit of a niche market, but the margin continues to narrow.
Bottomos?
Mesh networking, peer-to-peer, power to the decentralized people -- it all sounds great. But some of those people will still be on the side of the government. I wonder how much information one mesh node could accumulate to incriminate other participants? How many of "the people" will be willing to participate in an uprising like this if they know that a government stooge is likely no more than two or three hops away?
There's a long tradition of regulating electrical utilities -- their new-plant construction, their service build-out, and most especially their rates. If connecting single-household solar installations and buying back power from them is imposing an undue burden, and they can prove this, adjust the tariffs accordingly.
But you shouldn't quash an entire emerging industry just to protect an old and established one. Unfortunately, that seems to be one of the main duties of legislatures.
I repeat. It's 3D PRINTING FOR LIFE EXTENSION -- specifically, preserving the life of patients who would otherwise face a fairly quick (and extremely painful) death.
I'm listening for that faint sound of a certain Fark refugee's skull rupturing in the distance.
If this kind of rat experimentation bothers you, and I can't say that it shouldn't, I'd like to ask two follow-up questions.
First, have you ever seen what a cat does when it encounters a rat or a mouse? Cats are predators, but they don't always just swiftly kill and eat their prey. They often toy with it for quite a long time.
Second, having learned about this behavior, are you ready to call for the abolition of cats? I'll promise you that cats torture and kill far more rats worldwide than all scientists put together, and we gain far less from that activity than we do from medical research.
If you oppose animal testing, I can see that as a principled and well-supported stand. But if you aren't willing to go further and call for the end of domestic cat propagation, I'd very much like some insight into your reasoning.
As a chemistry hobbyist, I always wanted one of those big organic-labware sets with pluggable components -- you could build a multi-stage vacuum still, controlled-atmosphere reactor and separator, whatever you wanted -- but true micro- or nano-scale chemistry never seemed as appealing.
By analogy, I always thought playing with discrete components or small-scale logic chips was a lot more engaging than wiring up a microcontroller and loading it with canned or slightly-modified firmware.
On the other hand, you can unquestionably get a lot more done with the canned-complex-parts approach. I'll be fascinated to see where this leads.
...nah, somebody's already got it parked.
So, all these folks who are saying "low-life criminals are the problem, and we need to stop them by whatever means necessary" shouldn't be calling for harsher penalties, but more pervasive surveillance (because the important factor is how likely you are to be caught, not how severe the punishment is).
Yeah, I'm sure they'll get right on that.
That's right, some psycho kids once tried to kill another kid in the woods. So DON'T EVER THINK OF LETTING ANY KIDS GO INTO THE WOODS EVER!
Keep them inside, where nothing bad ever happens to kids. No kid ever suffered harm while locked in the basement. Right?
I remember yelling and waving my arms at some length years ago when I discovered that you could put arbitrary JavaScript into your auction descriptions. Sure, it lets you have cool expanding images and whatnot -- but I can't imagine securing it against attacks that do something like this, or attach event handlers to the controls in the eBay-served sections of the page, or any number of other nefarious things. Everybody told me to calm down and shut up at the time, and my posts on eBay's discussion forum disappeared pretty quickly.
I'm only surprised that it's taken this long for an attack to get even this minimal degree of coverage. (I was going to say "I'm surprised it took this long for someone to implement an attack", but I have no reason to believe that this is the first one.)
I can't possibly hope to "keep up", because you'll always be able to make up random nonsensical claims faster than I can debunk them. Enjoy your perpetual leadership.
Let's see what happens when you cut the transistor size by three orders of magnitude...
Oh, is that all you have to do?
That was an awfully big wall of text to write for just one nibble.
The civilizations that evolved earlier than us harvested it all to power their plugin-hybrid starships. What are you going to do about that, Elon?