I really enjoyed the graphical version of Zork. It was a big shift after playing all of the text adventures, but a fun experience. I can't swear that it would play on a modern OS (I think I was playing it on Win 95), but it can be acquired for a handful of copper plated zinc.
Simple solution: authorize everyone with WiFi capability to access your network. The authentication is very strong, as anyone without WiFi capability will absolutely not be allowed to connect.
There's a problem there. TFS indicates that this is just a "set of guidelines and recommendations", but the title indicates that it's a potential law. If the law states that you must authorize people to use your network, it seems that they could hold you responsible for its misuse. So if somebody transmits terrorist instructions / P2Ps RIAA music / uploads kiddie porn (won't somebody think of the children!?!), they may drag you in. Even though you didn't commit the crime, you authorized somebody to use your equipment and helped facilitate the crime.
Of course, if I loan somebody my car and they run down their cheating GF, I'm probably safe unless they told me their intention ahead of time. But Internet laws are still so nebulous that the analogy may not carry over.
This is only kiddie_valind's 4th post and he's managed 17 replies as of the time of this post. The troll-fu is strong with this one. He's been fed well.
But don't you know that every media outlet known to man (and a few that are unknown) will grab this headline and run with "Teh cancer causing plastic!!!!!!111!! News at 11:00."
You've got your terror-inducing tagline wrong - too informative and too specific on time. It's supposed to go:
A shocking new study has found that a chemical found in 99.8% of US househoulds may be killing your family. We'll have details on that alarming story sometime in the next 90 minutes. So stay tuned, we return you now to the live coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial.
This should be followed by 6 minutes of live coverage of a lawyer shuffling papers, a commercial break, and a return to the same teaser. Repeat ad nauseum.
I appreciated Mr Adams qualifying his survey with his own leanings, but the bias of the economists makes it very difficult to pull anything useful out of the results.
88% of Democratic economists think Obama would be best, while 80% of Republican economists pick McCain
And, since there were more than 3x as many Democrats in the pool as Republicans, I would assume that many of the "Independents" were also left-leaning. For whatever reason, apparently "economist" is a field that attracts liberals.
On a side note, for those of you that haven't read God's Debris: A Thought Experiment, it's worth checking out from the library (or dropping the $10 at Amazon) and taking a look at Scott Adams's serious side - Nothing life changing, but occasional moments of insight.
No kidding - It's kind of frustrating. I've enjoyed everything that I've read from Heinlein, but it's been like 20 years since he's written anything. What's up with that?
The end result is that the rock arrives at somewhere between 11 and 12 km/s, for a kinetic energy content of a bit less than double the same mass of TNT.
I think that one of us is doing their math wrong. Just to equate impact to TNT, let's use a 1 kg load and make the Earth a vacuum. (1 kg) * (11.2 km/s)^2 = 125 MJ. That's roughly 30 times the energy in 1 kg of TNT. You still need a ~30,000 kg load to achieve a 1 kiloton yield (a big load and a little nuke), but 30x is a lot more than double.
I'm not going to be bothered with the math nor will I try to defend Heinlein's supposition that large loads would produce mushroom clouds upon impact.
But, an object that leaves the moon at roughly escape velocity will be moving much faster by the time it hits Earth's atmosphere. You've got quite a bit of potential energy relative to the Earth just by being so high above the surface - That's quite a long fall with no air to slow you down. You can't factor in strictly the kinetic energy from the launch.
To examine your straw man a bit closer, who's arguing that bottled water keeps people safer by enabling them to kill people with the pull of a trigger?
I don't endorse the confiscation of bottled water, but to be fair I could kill a lot of people with a bottle of nitroglycerin which, to the passive observer, looks identical. Of course, a thin wooden dowel with 2" of rock candy at the tip and 6" of fulminated mercury stuck on below that would be equally effective and would probably pass security without notice unless they swiped/sniffed it.
I'm not sure that water is rightly categorized as an arm...
Quite right. Water is ammunition. Some surgical tubing and a swath of old jean material is the actual weapon, the water balloon is just the projectile.
Returning to the moon is a dry-run for going to Mars.
Yeah. I've wondered about that. Going to the moon is a A LOT easier than going to Mars. Mars is wayyyyyy far away compared to the moon (you can see this for yourself in Google Sky or Stellarium). It'll take many months to get there. Also Mars is a far more hostile an environment than the moon ever thought of being. Violent dust storms, high amounts of solar radiation, sand dunes that cover up large crevasses that could swallow a man.
I agree with all of that.
I realize that there are a lot of space exploration advocates here on/. - Perhaps you can answer a question for me. What potential outcome from making boot-prints on Mars might justify the cost of such a venture?
I realize that we piss away a huge amount of money here on Earth and I've heard that used as a justification, but that frankly strikes me as just stupid - Wasting $$ on 1 endeavor does not justify wasting $$ on another. I ask sincerely - Can anyone tell me why it makes good long- or short-term financial sense to put human beings on Mars?
Nevermind the fact that with your moon-based solar array, you'll be in near or absolute darkness for 10-14 days at a time, generating -ZERO- power.:-) So take that estimate of yours, double it, and add in 1,000 miles of power cable.
No need for that much cable. Just send 1 rocket loaded to the gills with batteries to follow the 2 rockets filled with solar panels. How much could that cost?
This seems like a good use for a NaK cooled reactor. The Russians have used similar reactors for satellites because its low vapor pressure makes it useful for use in a vacuum.
You do realise there is more land area on the moon than on earth? Plenty of space to leave things for a good time.
I agree with your conclusion, but your premise just plain wrong. Sorry.
The surface of the Moon is less than 1/10th that of the Earth, and only about a quarter the size of the Earth's land area (or about as large as Russia, Canada, and the U.S. combined).
One big problem with putting a slingshot on the moon capable of achieving escape velocity. I read an analysis on the topic several years back:
First we establish the means of hurling stuff off of the moon sufficient to achieve escape velocity. Soon we realize the potential of using that mechanism for mining and establish a mining colony. Miners realize that, after several years in 1/6 gravity, they cannot return to Earth and their resources are being irreversibly diminished because hurling ore at Earth is much cheaper than hurling water at the moon. Through the aid of an advanced computer, they decide to declare war and start "throwing rocks" at us.
Sure, moon culture may turn out to be pretty cool and incorporate some groovy polygamy, but nobody wants a rock war.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. No offense.
Nvidia started shielding their Logic diamonds (TM) against the Iridium exposure more than 9 months ago (why they won't just drop the contract with their cardboard supplier is anybody's guess - I think there's some behind-the-scenes stuff there).
However, the shielding causes the boards to overheat when in use. If the end-users would actually RTFM, they would clearly see that they are supposed to scrape off the top 0.01" on all ICs after discarding of the cardboard and before mounting their cards to remove the anti-rad coating. You can hardly blame Nvidia for their users being too lazy to follow basic directions.
You may want "hot new album" but you may well need Windows for work, school, whatever. There's a difference.
Umm, I hate to point this out to you, but no one needs Windows, either. Ever hear of a Mac? Linux?
Sure, I don't need Windows. But I think that acquiring Windows beats finding other employment or going all the way into the office for the occasional trivial work-related chore.
Slashdot Mirror
Grand Inquisitor sounds right, but it's been a while. Good silly fun in the same spirit as the text adventures.
The road to the south is impassible. Absolutely impossible to pass. Impassible.
Why not add graphics?
I really enjoyed the graphical version of Zork. It was a big shift after playing all of the text adventures, but a fun experience. I can't swear that it would play on a modern OS (I think I was playing it on Win 95), but it can be acquired for a handful of copper plated zinc.
Simple solution: authorize everyone with WiFi capability to access your network. The authentication is very strong, as anyone without WiFi capability will absolutely not be allowed to connect.
There's a problem there. TFS indicates that this is just a "set of guidelines and recommendations", but the title indicates that it's a potential law. If the law states that you must authorize people to use your network, it seems that they could hold you responsible for its misuse. So if somebody transmits terrorist instructions / P2Ps RIAA music / uploads kiddie porn (won't somebody think of the children!?!), they may drag you in. Even though you didn't commit the crime, you authorized somebody to use your equipment and helped facilitate the crime.
Of course, if I loan somebody my car and they run down their cheating GF, I'm probably safe unless they told me their intention ahead of time. But Internet laws are still so nebulous that the analogy may not carry over.
Quite right - I hadn't heard. Thanks.
http://nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf
This is only kiddie_valind's 4th post and he's managed 17 replies as of the time of this post. The troll-fu is strong with this one. He's been fed well.
But don't you know that every media outlet known to man (and a few that are unknown) will grab this headline and run with "Teh cancer causing plastic!!!!!!111!! News at 11:00."
You've got your terror-inducing tagline wrong - too informative and too specific on time. It's supposed to go:
A shocking new study has found that a chemical found in 99.8% of US househoulds may be killing your family. We'll have details on that alarming story sometime in the next 90 minutes. So stay tuned, we return you now to the live coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial.
This should be followed by 6 minutes of live coverage of a lawyer shuffling papers, a commercial break, and a return to the same teaser. Repeat ad nauseum.
What's a mime?
A mime is someone who acts out a story through body motions without use of speech.
They're easy not to like.
I appreciated Mr Adams qualifying his survey with his own leanings, but the bias of the economists makes it very difficult to pull anything useful out of the results.
88% of Democratic economists think Obama would be best, while 80% of Republican economists pick McCain
And, since there were more than 3x as many Democrats in the pool as Republicans, I would assume that many of the "Independents" were also left-leaning. For whatever reason, apparently "economist" is a field that attracts liberals.
On a side note, for those of you that haven't read God's Debris: A Thought Experiment , it's worth checking out from the library (or dropping the $10 at Amazon) and taking a look at Scott Adams's serious side - Nothing life changing, but occasional moments of insight.
You're right - most of us read it YEARS ago.
No kidding - It's kind of frustrating. I've enjoyed everything that I've read from Heinlein, but it's been like 20 years since he's written anything. What's up with that?
(go read the damn article for the full explanation of why 6 is plenty)
I've always wondered what RTFA stood for. F is for damn. Thanks.
=P
The end result is that the rock arrives at somewhere between 11 and 12 km/s, for a kinetic energy content of a bit less than double the same mass of TNT.
I think that one of us is doing their math wrong. Just to equate impact to TNT, let's use a 1 kg load and make the Earth a vacuum. (1 kg) * (11.2 km/s)^2 = 125 MJ. That's roughly 30 times the energy in 1 kg of TNT. You still need a ~30,000 kg load to achieve a 1 kiloton yield (a big load and a little nuke), but 30x is a lot more than double.
I'm not going to be bothered with the math nor will I try to defend Heinlein's supposition that large loads would produce mushroom clouds upon impact.
But, an object that leaves the moon at roughly escape velocity will be moving much faster by the time it hits Earth's atmosphere. You've got quite a bit of potential energy relative to the Earth just by being so high above the surface - That's quite a long fall with no air to slow you down. You can't factor in strictly the kinetic energy from the launch.
To examine your straw man a bit closer, who's arguing that bottled water keeps people safer by enabling them to kill people with the pull of a trigger?
I don't endorse the confiscation of bottled water, but to be fair I could kill a lot of people with a bottle of nitroglycerin which, to the passive observer, looks identical. Of course, a thin wooden dowel with 2" of rock candy at the tip and 6" of fulminated mercury stuck on below that would be equally effective and would probably pass security without notice unless they swiped/sniffed it.
I'm not sure that water is rightly categorized as an arm...
Quite right. Water is ammunition. Some surgical tubing and a swath of old jean material is the actual weapon, the water balloon is just the projectile.
Hm. One hand holding the handset. One hand holding onto the telephone pole.
Yep, you're doing it wrong.
That's why it took him so long. Try substituting a dry-hump on a telephone pole for your hand-of-preference. It takes much longer.
Um... At least that's what I've heard...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_side_of_the_moon#Voices
Returning to the moon is a dry-run for going to Mars.
Yeah. I've wondered about that. Going to the moon is a A LOT easier than going to Mars. Mars is wayyyyyy far away compared to the moon (you can see this for yourself in Google Sky or Stellarium). It'll take many months to get there. Also Mars is a far more hostile an environment than the moon ever thought of being. Violent dust storms, high amounts of solar radiation, sand dunes that cover up large crevasses that could swallow a man.
I agree with all of that.
I realize that there are a lot of space exploration advocates here on /. - Perhaps you can answer a question for me. What potential outcome from making boot-prints on Mars might justify the cost of such a venture?
I realize that we piss away a huge amount of money here on Earth and I've heard that used as a justification, but that frankly strikes me as just stupid - Wasting $$ on 1 endeavor does not justify wasting $$ on another. I ask sincerely - Can anyone tell me why it makes good long- or short-term financial sense to put human beings on Mars?
Nevermind the fact that with your moon-based solar array, you'll be in near or absolute darkness for 10-14 days at a time, generating -ZERO- power. :-) So take that estimate of yours, double it, and add in 1,000 miles of power cable.
No need for that much cable. Just send 1 rocket loaded to the gills with batteries to follow the 2 rockets filled with solar panels. How much could that cost?
=P
Why would they want to send it to Pluto? It's a Mickey Mouse planet!
Pluto never should have been a planet.
This seems like a good use for a NaK cooled reactor. The Russians have used similar reactors for satellites because its low vapor pressure makes it useful for use in a vacuum.
You do realise there is more land area on the moon than on earth? Plenty of space to leave things for a good time.
I agree with your conclusion, but your premise just plain wrong. Sorry.
The surface of the Moon is less than 1/10th that of the Earth, and only about a quarter the size of the Earth's land area (or about as large as Russia, Canada, and the U.S. combined).
Oh, wait, solar. yeah, that leaves half of the planet off-limits.
There is no dark side of the Moon really... as a matter of fact it's all dark.
One big problem with putting a slingshot on the moon capable of achieving escape velocity. I read an analysis on the topic several years back:
First we establish the means of hurling stuff off of the moon sufficient to achieve escape velocity. Soon we realize the potential of using that mechanism for mining and establish a mining colony. Miners realize that, after several years in 1/6 gravity, they cannot return to Earth and their resources are being irreversibly diminished because hurling ore at Earth is much cheaper than hurling water at the moon. Through the aid of an advanced computer, they decide to declare war and start "throwing rocks" at us.
Sure, moon culture may turn out to be pretty cool and incorporate some groovy polygamy, but nobody wants a rock war.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. No offense.
Nvidia started shielding their Logic diamonds (TM) against the Iridium exposure more than 9 months ago (why they won't just drop the contract with their cardboard supplier is anybody's guess - I think there's some behind-the-scenes stuff there).
However, the shielding causes the boards to overheat when in use. If the end-users would actually RTFM, they would clearly see that they are supposed to scrape off the top 0.01" on all ICs after discarding of the cardboard and before mounting their cards to remove the anti-rad coating. You can hardly blame Nvidia for their users being too lazy to follow basic directions.
You may want "hot new album" but you may well need Windows for work, school, whatever. There's a difference.
Umm, I hate to point this out to you, but no one needs Windows, either. Ever hear of a Mac? Linux?
Sure, I don't need Windows. But I think that acquiring Windows beats finding other employment or going all the way into the office for the occasional trivial work-related chore.