Well, for subatomic particles, the space within the atoms is sufficient for some of the particles to get through. No mount of nanotechnology will change the basic structure of the atom. A single sheet of any traditional matter (Traditional matter meaning matter made up of atoms) cannot block 100% of subatomic radiation.
That being said, it is possible to make substances wherein the atoms themselves are closer together than lead and thus better at blocking the particles. This, of course, would make the substances heavier than lead, not lighter, but could cut down on the neccicary volume requried. (AKA a thin heavy sheet, but no think light sheets). Also, a better organized molecular structure might be more efficient so far as atom placement allowing somewhat fewer atoms to block the same grid, but it still will have to be many many layers and thus, not extremly light.
IANAP (I am not a physicist) so someone will probably correct me somewhat, but if nothing else this post should answer the question about what properties of two feet of lead make it a radiation barrier, atom density. (Gold or other dense metals work as well.)
OK, your last point first, I was specificly regaurding only one definition of Occult, as mentioned above. My primary argument is that Physics could fit under that definition. Although, I admit, you have to work at it a bit.
Although I failed to state it, my secondary point was that much of the modern Phyiscs world is "Theoritical Physics" and not done by the scientific method because there is, as yet, no way to test the theories. My third point, that there is no clear line between occult scientists and true scientists, although again, I think I failed to make this clear, was a historical argument not a definition based argument. I was basicly stating that at the birth of modern science, it was not differentiated from the occult sciences and many of the earliest discoveries were direct outcroppings of the occult sciences gaining enough true understanding to begin making rational predictions.
On a side note, very few occult scientists would claim that they had "the ultimate unshakable theory" although most of them beleived such a theory was possible, unlike modern scientists. Intrestingly the test of such an ultimate theory then, would be the same as it would be now, results. (Turning lead into gold etc.).
My post was a joke, however, it might be a defenceable position that the whole of physics is indeed beyond the relm of human comprehension. That there are a finite number of physical laws has not been proven, (nor, frankly is it provable, as that would, ipso facto, be proving a negitave: that there are no more physical laws not yet considered, or that no new discovery could revolutionize the understanding of physics). If one then takes the position that there is no limit to the number of physical laws to be uncovered, then Physics as a whole becomes an Occult Science.
On a side note, most of the traditional Occult Sciences (alchemy, astrology etc.) were, like some fields of physics, models of how the universe works based primarly upon observation with little experimentation. As our observational abilities increased, and our extended abilities to do experiments on things that were previously only observable came to light, these occult sciences morphed into hard sciences. The important thing to note, is that there is NO LINE between the two. A discovery by an alchemist may well have been used by a chemist and vice versa. One day, our notions on physics, especialy on the extreme micro (quantam) and macro levels may be considered as superstisious as the ideas of the astrologers do to us.
Re:SCO doesn't eat thier own dog food.
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 1
This is leaving a taste of bile in my mouth, but I'm going to have speak for SCO on this one, as SCO isn't here to speak for itself.
Yes we do indeed use our own version of UNIX. We are currently runing Linux which, as you should know, is the intelectual property of SCO. Our legal department is still trying to determine our ownership of Apache, but we expect to find we own it as well within the next few weeks. Furthermore, in your origional post you included a line that begins with http://. Looking at our website, we find that this construction appears to be lifted verbatum from on most of our links. Please send us $600 for each time you have used the stolen IP "http://".
Your first qualification for professional focuses on standards compliance. Looking at the track record, most OS projects seem to meet the ISO standards, while CS projects, especialy those marketed in Redmond, will often break the standard to make their version "better" and make sure that standards-based competitors don't have the non-standard "features". In that relm the track record of OS projects far surpasses CS software.
I am going to grant you the UI standard issue, OS projects do seem to have a problem there.
Documentation is far more standard in many OS projects than in CS projects. CS projects do their documentation however they whant they do not as often use the man and info format helpfiles that are standardized both in output format and access method.
Providing tests... I am just a bear of very little brain, I don't know what you mean here, clairification please?
As far as realease management, OS project release management generaly has three stages. Alpha software is the first stage, in this stage the software testers extensively test the software and often make fixes on the fly. The testerbase for alpha software is small and generaly fall within the heavy programmer demeographic, possibly even only the development. The second stage, beta software, (0.x) is relased for general use with the cavet that it is likly to still contain bugs. This allows potentualy hundreds of thousands of people to try more different combanations of commands and enviroment settings than a closed development team could ever reasonably replicate. This real-world test method reaches many different demographics who will use or misuse the software in many ways that the developers never considered or accounted for and thus would not have tested in a closed project. These users will submit their error reports and some of them will even submit codefixes. The final release product shoud therefore have been extensivly tested for standard functionality, load, etc. much more rigurously than an artificial testbed could ever impliment.
Oh, and yes, entire companies are running OS projects now. Oh, and I don't know your wife, but my mother has no problems with using OS projects.
So if enjoyable music is universal accross cultures, why can't my parents stand my music, or their parents stand theirs? Why do thousands of people flock to modern country music concerts while I, literaly, have to leave an establishment if someone plays more than two or three in a row on the jukebox? And why do some people love rap while, although I don't mind it at all, I really have never been able to draw any enjoyment from it? For that matter why are there some songs by REM that I love and others that I push the skip button on the cd player when they come up to be played? Why do so many of my friends think I'm totaly insane when I songs out of of Puccini's Tosca (Opera) into the same mix tape/CD/Playlist as the two Creed Songs I actualy like? Why do 3/4 of the people who listen to me play the Dead Kennedies truly not understand that I think it is Music not just lyrics set to noise? Why am I still going on about this, you think I'd have made my point already!
Go to the back of your computer, find the cable that goes from the computer to your speakers. (If you have a modern system this will probably have a green plug). Disconect the cable. You have now turned off the drumbeat.
Better than a module, why can't it save your kernel configuration and apply it to new versions and auto recompile (with nice) at a user-selected auto-maintnance time (4am perhaps as a default) then provide a boot menu next login with two options new kernel (default) old kernel (in case there was a problem with the new). This wouldn't be to hard to automate, although you might need a metaconfig file of some type.
This way for non tech savy people with unusual situations that require custom kernels (getting rarer and rarer these days) they would only need to get help in setup ONCE and still keep an up to date kernel.
They say they need to free up money to allow a newcommer (next generation orbital telescope) but once they ditch hubble, will they put the saved money into its successor, or another round of taxcuts for the well-to-do?
Somehow there needs to be a way to gaurentee a next generation before ditching our current technology.
Origional or insightfull == bashing the Brazilian government and governments in general. I understand master, but a question if I may: Do I have to have worked for the government to bash it, or can I do so from an armchair?
About the time WB gets a hold of the copyright to Battle Chess after realizing the similarity to Wizard's Chess in the Harry Potter books. (WB, in case you've been living under a rock, owns the rights to merchandise Harry Potter products) Then there will be a complete rewrite and it will be realeased as "Harry Potter Wizzard Chess" and chess playing among the under 13 crowd will go up tenfold.
Unless this has already happened and my predictions about the popularity were wrong, of course.
And no, the under 13 crowd will never play on skill level 1000 (level which must not be named) but the fact that they COULD will be a selling point.
Um, considering that it is being used on a system that it was NOT designed for. OF COURSE they disavow any responsibility. To do otherwise would be irresponsibile. Now they COULD be nice and try to help, even though it wasn't their fault. But that's another issue.
Wait, which ones? My limited coding experience lets me know that both Java and C++ are OOP, and I can't imagine that Objective C isn't. So I missed ADA. Or did I miss something else? Confused I am.
5 years experience with OOP languages including C++, Java, ADA and Objective C.
Assuming you have 5 years experience with OOP and experience with the mentioned languages you havn't falseified your resume and the client might just accept the resume. (Considering the client is isn't the best informed person anyway). Furthermore, if you do have extensive OOP experience, and some Java experience, you will probably fill the position just fine.
Our elementary school teachers tend to work 60+ hours a week (Most of it "unofficial" work at home, grading, preparing etc.) and most of them don't earn in their lifetimes the amount some CEO's make in a couple of years. And, really, which is more important, CEO's or elementry school teachers (hint, there can be teachers without CEO's but every CEO had a teacher in their background that helped make it possible.)
Pay based on amount of work? Not in this country. Pay based on importance of work? Not in this country.
And how much data do you think will go over the ENTIRE 15-meter band at one time? How much of this bandwidth are you asking to be allocated? How much of the allocated bandwidth do you think YOU will get at any one time if this is shared WORLDWIDE? Perhaps 1 byte every 30 seconds? Possibly, but probably much less than that.
It would be nice, but not even the FCC can change the laws of physics.
But this isn't the case of accidental damage, but a case of failed attempt to protect against intentional damage. A better anology would be: "Should a truck manufacturer who makes all their vehicles with the same key cylinder be prosecuted if one of their trucks get stolen?"
Or did you mean that the person who should be prosecuted is the person who made the trojan/virus that was used on the system? In this case the analogy would be something close to "The only person who should be held liable in the case of a double murder is the gun manufacturer (assuming it was a shooting." (note: for this argument, assume the gun used was of a type that has something like a silencer or something so it would only be used for illigitamate uses.)
Not sure I agree with either point, but not sure I don't eiter, but I think I've helped clarify it. (Which point was it btw, the maker of the unsecure OS(truck) or the maker of the trojan(gun) who you were prosecuting?
I use linux on my x86 box and OS X (10.2.?) on my iBook. I slightly prefer the OS X but it won't run on cheep boxes. Linux is almost as user-friendly for application-based tasks such as word-processing, webbrowsing email and database/spreadsheet administration. (OS X seems to have better system configuration tools from the GUI). Both systems are based on the *nix look and support Bash or Tcsh shells. (If you don't know what that means, don't worry, it isn't important). Both are, or can be, POSIX compliant and both are stable enough for mission-critical applicatons (no warrenties apply, I take no liability if my statement turns out to be misleading and either OS fails in any paticular application).
My recomendation: get linux on an x86 box if price is a big issue to you, and/or if you already have an x86 box. If you want to get a whole new computer that is as nifty as possible go for a high-end Mac with OS X (latest release).
What about when I start selling a copy of the software that allows this, allong with a (custom?) USB cable. It isn't be illegal to make third-party hardware addons so what could they do? Many people would buy the kit from the kid next door or off ebay instead of paying a continued service. Then the service is doomed. It will, however, take longer than some people seem to think. Perhaps Ritz will come out with a better model by then, better image resolution, different I/O.
Or perhaps these things will become like cellphones, subscription based. (Free camera with contract).
I stand corrected and apoligize. I had forgotten that each book was two books. (I love the english language). And for the record yes, I've read them, although apparently not as recently as I should have. Guess I'll re-read them again soon. Again, my sincerest apologies for my insinuations.
Slashdot Mirror
That being said, it is possible to make substances wherein the atoms themselves are closer together than lead and thus better at blocking the particles. This, of course, would make the substances heavier than lead, not lighter, but could cut down on the neccicary volume requried. (AKA a thin heavy sheet, but no think light sheets). Also, a better organized molecular structure might be more efficient so far as atom placement allowing somewhat fewer atoms to block the same grid, but it still will have to be many many layers and thus, not extremly light.
IANAP (I am not a physicist) so someone will probably correct me somewhat, but if nothing else this post should answer the question about what properties of two feet of lead make it a radiation barrier, atom density. (Gold or other dense metals work as well.)
Although I failed to state it, my secondary point was that much of the modern Phyiscs world is "Theoritical Physics" and not done by the scientific method because there is, as yet, no way to test the theories. My third point, that there is no clear line between occult scientists and true scientists, although again, I think I failed to make this clear, was a historical argument not a definition based argument. I was basicly stating that at the birth of modern science, it was not differentiated from the occult sciences and many of the earliest discoveries were direct outcroppings of the occult sciences gaining enough true understanding to begin making rational predictions.
On a side note, very few occult scientists would claim that they had "the ultimate unshakable theory" although most of them beleived such a theory was possible, unlike modern scientists. Intrestingly the test of such an ultimate theory then, would be the same as it would be now, results. (Turning lead into gold etc.).
On a side note, most of the traditional Occult Sciences (alchemy, astrology etc.) were, like some fields of physics, models of how the universe works based primarly upon observation with little experimentation. As our observational abilities increased, and our extended abilities to do experiments on things that were previously only observable came to light, these occult sciences morphed into hard sciences. The important thing to note, is that there is NO LINE between the two. A discovery by an alchemist may well have been used by a chemist and vice versa. One day, our notions on physics, especialy on the extreme micro (quantam) and macro levels may be considered as superstisious as the ideas of the astrologers do to us.
Yes we do indeed use our own version of UNIX. We are currently runing Linux which, as you should know, is the intelectual property of SCO. Our legal department is still trying to determine our ownership of Apache, but we expect to find we own it as well within the next few weeks. Furthermore, in your origional post you included a line that begins with http://. Looking at our website, we find that this construction appears to be lifted verbatum from on most of our links. Please send us $600 for each time you have used the stolen IP "http://".
2. # Beyond the realm of human comprehension; inscrutable.
I am going to grant you the UI standard issue, OS projects do seem to have a problem there.
Documentation is far more standard in many OS projects than in CS projects. CS projects do their documentation however they whant they do not as often use the man and info format helpfiles that are standardized both in output format and access method.
Providing tests... I am just a bear of very little brain, I don't know what you mean here, clairification please?
As far as realease management, OS project release management generaly has three stages. Alpha software is the first stage, in this stage the software testers extensively test the software and often make fixes on the fly. The testerbase for alpha software is small and generaly fall within the heavy programmer demeographic, possibly even only the development. The second stage, beta software, (0.x) is relased for general use with the cavet that it is likly to still contain bugs. This allows potentualy hundreds of thousands of people to try more different combanations of commands and enviroment settings than a closed development team could ever reasonably replicate. This real-world test method reaches many different demographics who will use or misuse the software in many ways that the developers never considered or accounted for and thus would not have tested in a closed project. These users will submit their error reports and some of them will even submit codefixes. The final release product shoud therefore have been extensivly tested for standard functionality, load, etc. much more rigurously than an artificial testbed could ever impliment.
Oh, and yes, entire companies are running OS projects now. Oh, and I don't know your wife, but my mother has no problems with using OS projects.
So if enjoyable music is universal accross cultures, why can't my parents stand my music, or their parents stand theirs? Why do thousands of people flock to modern country music concerts while I, literaly, have to leave an establishment if someone plays more than two or three in a row on the jukebox? And why do some people love rap while, although I don't mind it at all, I really have never been able to draw any enjoyment from it? For that matter why are there some songs by REM that I love and others that I push the skip button on the cd player when they come up to be played? Why do so many of my friends think I'm totaly insane when I songs out of of Puccini's Tosca (Opera) into the same mix tape/CD/Playlist as the two Creed Songs I actualy like? Why do 3/4 of the people who listen to me play the Dead Kennedies truly not understand that I think it is Music not just lyrics set to noise? Why am I still going on about this, you think I'd have made my point already!
Hope this helps.
CLONE WARS
This way for non tech savy people with unusual situations that require custom kernels (getting rarer and rarer these days) they would only need to get help in setup ONCE and still keep an up to date kernel.
Except for what happens if the entire rest of the school sees the webpage... Then the kid may as well move to an Amish settlement.
Somehow there needs to be a way to gaurentee a next generation before ditching our current technology.
Origional or insightfull == bashing the Brazilian government and governments in general. I understand master, but a question if I may: Do I have to have worked for the government to bash it, or can I do so from an armchair?
Unless this has already happened and my predictions about the popularity were wrong, of course.
And no, the under 13 crowd will never play on skill level 1000 (level which must not be named) but the fact that they COULD will be a selling point.
Um, considering that it is being used on a system that it was NOT designed for. OF COURSE they disavow any responsibility. To do otherwise would be irresponsibile. Now they COULD be nice and try to help, even though it wasn't their fault. But that's another issue.
Wait, which ones? My limited coding experience lets me know that both Java and C++ are OOP, and I can't imagine that Objective C isn't. So I missed ADA. Or did I miss something else? Confused I am.
Ok, I admit, I'm not a coder and got my list from a google hierarchy. Blame google not me! Ok blame me AND google.
Assuming you have 5 years experience with OOP and experience with the mentioned languages you havn't falseified your resume and the client might just accept the resume. (Considering the client is isn't the best informed person anyway). Furthermore, if you do have extensive OOP experience, and some Java experience, you will probably fill the position just fine.
Pay based on amount of work? Not in this country. Pay based on importance of work? Not in this country.
It would be nice, but not even the FCC can change the laws of physics.
Or did you mean that the person who should be prosecuted is the person who made the trojan/virus that was used on the system? In this case the analogy would be something close to "The only person who should be held liable in the case of a double murder is the gun manufacturer (assuming it was a shooting." (note: for this argument, assume the gun used was of a type that has something like a silencer or something so it would only be used for illigitamate uses.)
Not sure I agree with either point, but not sure I don't eiter, but I think I've helped clarify it. (Which point was it btw, the maker of the unsecure OS(truck) or the maker of the trojan(gun) who you were prosecuting?
My recomendation: get linux on an x86 box if price is a big issue to you, and/or if you already have an x86 box. If you want to get a whole new computer that is as nifty as possible go for a high-end Mac with OS X (latest release).
Or perhaps these things will become like cellphones, subscription based. (Free camera with contract).
What? Sheathe my sword unbloodied? I think not! I'll just hold it here 'till my arm falls off.
I stand corrected and apoligize. I had forgotten that each book was two books. (I love the english language). And for the record yes, I've read them, although apparently not as recently as I should have. Guess I'll re-read them again soon. Again, my sincerest apologies for my insinuations.