I could use a bit more "complicated" in my Windows experience. Windows 7 has an obnoxious habit of producing error messages that amount to, "Something went wrong!" without any further information that might help me to narrow down and solve the problem. If we can get a Microsoft that does away with this attitude of making things user-friendly to the point of excluding the advanced and knowledgeable user, then I will welcome the change.
As for why we don't build ships at a space station? The logistics of keeping a staff in orbit, and blasting parts into orbit so they can be assembled by staff in orbit, then blasting fuel into orbit so the ship can be fuelled, then blasting a crew and food supplies into orbit so that the ship can actually be launched are far more expensive than simply building craft on terra firma and blasting the whole kit and kaboodle into space. Until we're ready to start manned missions to deep space, it's simply not worth it, economically.
The logistics do seem quite daunting, but at the same time, removing launch and atmospheric capabilities from the ship's requirements may lend itself to new designs that handle space travel much more effectively, thereby making deep space missions much more practical. As well, the technology that goes into creating the space shipyard will contribute to the colonization of the moon, Mars, and many other worlds; not to mention that the facilities may well serve to produce much of the equipment necessary for said colonization. Also consider that once the facilities are there, the logistics of getting raw materials to it are likely to improve-- the benefactors will be keen on investing in infrastructure for getting the materials into orbit, first of all, but more significantly, the station itself will have the ability to build the vessels and equipment needed to mine the materials from space-borne objects.
There are indeed some technological hurdles to be leaped, but that's really what this whole thing is about, isn't it?
No records. I've done no scientific research, only casual observation. Over a few weeks, I might watch the way a girl interacts with those around her, and then I ask her, "Did such and such happen to you, around the time you were so and so age?" and the answer is often affirmative, though sometimes with some minor corrections. I haven't had occasion to do so in a number of years, but women were always much easier to read than men, and younger easier than older.
As I said, it's completely unscientific and I wouldn't call it reliable, but I've been able to do better than guess, and I've obtained results with useful accuracy.
You make very good points. Such a system would be hazardous to a society which values liberty, without effective safeguards in place to prevent corruption.
Police services could be outsourced to private security firms easily enough, and conceivably for much cheaper than current state-run police organizations. A private security firm could take convicts for labor, in exchange for their police services. The security firm might even pay the local government for rights to the criminals they catch, depending on how profitable the back-end of that turns out to be. The courts, however, would necessarily be state-run with regular audits to check for corruption among the judges.
I don't know that this would be better or worse than our current system. There may be arguments to be made concerning human rights and such, but then again, our current system places incentive on writing tickets for petty offenses (supposing a patrol officer earns $400 a day, then three tickets a day will make him profitable), but there is no incentive to catch a thief, beyond a hypothetical drive that a police officer might have to seek to do good in the world. Under a private security system, where profit is had by convicting criminals rather than inciting fines upon mildly misbehaved citizens, we might see more burglaries solved, and fewer speeding tickets.
Actually, I've found female behavior to be easier to predict based on knowledge of personal history, as well as personal history easier to predict based on female behavior, than in males. I'd welcome correction on this, if someone can cite a reference (or at least provide a convincing logical argument), but it seems like men are less responsive to traumatic events than women.
The "GOD HATES FAGS" sort of Christian is a bigot first, and not much a "Christian" at all. Rather than following the instructions of our savior-- those being to love others and to leave the task of judgment to God --these people instead choose to use our God to justify their irrationality. They ignore the chief messages of the entire New Testament, and focus on a handful of passages taken out of context in the Old Testament. The passages cited as forbidding homosexuality are part of an enumeration of the laws of the ancient Jewish state, and specifically forbid men from engaging in sexual acts with other men, among other things including animals and women on their period.
Leviticus provides a long, and very specific list of people and things the Jews were not to have sex with (Interestingly, there is no mention at all of girl-on-girl action). This is all part of a very long list of general rules which promote the overall health of the society as a whole. There is no, "IF YOU HAVE THE GAY SEX THEN YOU'RE GO TO HELL". There is only, "Don't do that, it's gross."
I like Westerns. I like Sci-Fi. I really enjoyed Cowboy Bebop, but I never really got a "Western" vibe off of it. It seemed to me, to have more of a 1930's PI feel to it, with a twist of mob-drama.
For the life of me, I can't remember what episode it is, but I recall a scene in the original Star Trek where, in a conference room aboard the Enterprise, Dr. McCoy was reading out surprisingly detailed information from a terminal, the display interface of which, consisted of only a handful of variously colored lights.
Re:Bah - I already read this story
on
Kidney Printer
·
· Score: 1
There are other mitigating factors, the biggest of which, is how many people it takes to produce an adequate supply of the material to satisfy the needs of the population as a whole. If it is adequately difficult to produce in quantity that everyone basically needs to manufacture their own, then the economy doesn't change. However, if, for the sake of contrast, an adequate supply for the world can be produced by two people in an afternoon, then we run into a different problem. The new product obsoletes an entire industry, and with it, a great chunk of the world's income. Factory workers make up a great deal of the world's population, and when their income goes away, that spreads to have an impact on the service industry, the entertainment industry and on outward, like a cancer. Before long, virtually the only people with an income to purchase the raw material, are the people who produce it.
I'm not exactly sure how it works out from there. Either we take an altruistic approach, such as in the Star Trek universe, where every man works to the betterment of world and self, or we take on a more complex economy that has a substantially different balancing point.
The regions of California which are prone to earthquakes are all along the coast. The weather in these regions tends to be quite wet and humid (the fog in San Francisco borders on legendary), and as such, rust is a substantial problem for vehicles. Keeping the trucks harbored inside makes them much easier to maintain. Granted, Southern California earthquake regions tend to be drier, but again, it's easier for fire services to maintain their vehicles when they're kept inside-- not to mention that it's easier to get to them in an emergency, when they're kept in a location right next to the equipment.
The last time Nintendo tried to really "innovate" with The Legend of Zelda, we wound up with The Adventure of Link, with its mix of top-down maps and side scrolling. Though I personally enjoyed the hell out of Zelda 2, as it turns out, that sort of change just wasn't the proper formula for popularity. Tangentially, for those who forsake it, I'll point out that it did introduce a number of elements which persisted or re-appeared, including metered magic use, the hammer, and the downward jumping sword thrust. Furthermore, the side-scrolling gameplay serves as a functioning archetype for games of the 3D era, while the art style laid the perceptive foundation for that which is found in Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess.
In any case, I for one, have no issue with old franchises maintaining their core mechanics from one release to another. "The Legend of Zelda" isn't really just a NES game, so much as a type of game, featuring a core set of re-occurring elements, which get added to or tweaked from one installment to the next, as the technology improves. Having a gimmicky game (such as Link's Crossbow Training, for a local example) from time to time is fine, so long as the core is not abandoned in the main series.
What I want to know is this: At what point, exactly, did it become lawful for all of the largest corporations of an industry to organize in their collective best interests? How is it that Anti-Trust laws don't take organizations such as the MPAA and RIAA into account? Is it not a tenant of Capitalism, that entities offering the same type of product in an industry are meant to compete with one another, rather than band together to bully their consumer base into making purchases they might not otherwise?
I used to think it was odd, seeing my supervisor do that at work, when I suggested a site to him which might not necessarily be work related. Some great time later, I realized why he did it that way-- If you type the URL into Google, it doesn't show up in the URL bar's history. This was before private browsing and that sort of thing started showing up, and while he wasn't too concerned about what someone might find if they pulled up the browser history, he didn't necessarily want everywhere he's recently gone to appear if someone just happened to sit down at his desk to use the web.
Planets orbiting in regions which we identify as a star's "habitable" zone are potential locations to establish colonies.
Beyond that, if we go there and find intelligent life, then it'll be much easier to establish a relationship with a species that breathes our air, has an overlapping thermal range of comfort, and lives under gravity and pressure conditions comparable to our own. Once we've made successful first contact a few times, and gotten the hang of intergalactic diplomacy, then we can worry about making friends with the damn Tholians.
That would be a tremendously ineffective way of locking down the internet. Seizure of DNS server domains will prevent domain names from being resolved, but if the IP address is known, then the site can still be reached. Furthermore, certain types of gateway DNS servers cache domains that have been looked up, so a great deal of Facebook users sitting in their offices may not even notice for a while.
Apples and Oranges share all sorts of qualities that can be compared, if you are seeking only to identify the differences between the fruits. The metaphor in question, however, is meant in contrast to comparing apples to apples, or oranges to oranges, to ascertain the quality of any given instance of the object. If you are to judge an orange's quality on the standards which you'd judge an apple's quality, then you'll have a very difficult time, indeed.
I submit that the successful anti-piracy measure they employed, was OtherOS as a distraction tactic for those with the ability to crack the system. It clearly wasn't their encryption methods that were adequate for the job.
From what you said, the logical conclusion is that the strict gun control laws are a response to the high homicide rates. To prove the reverse you must establish that an *increase* in gun availability in the general population deters homicides, which is not what you said.
I merely stated that culture is a more important influence over suicide rates, than gun control laws.
When homicide rates fluctuate, it's difficult to pin-point an exact cause, as gun control laws are not the only contributing factor. However, it's worth noting that Florida, Texas and Michigan have adopted Right-to-Carry laws in 1987, 1996 and 2001 respectively, and in each case the states have seen reduced murder rates, thereafter, though (based on the data I've seen) Texas was already experiencing a drop in murder rates when their Right-to-Carry law was enacted, and Michigan's homicide rate didn't change nearly so much as the other two states. Florida's change was much more pronounced, with a 36% reduction in the state-wide homicide rate by 1996. This information suggests that a Right-to-Carry law will improve a homicide rate, but it's hardly conclusive, without knowing what other contributing factors may have existed in that period.
There are places which have strict gun control laws and low crime rates, and there are places which have strict gun control laws and high crime rates. Both circumstances also occur with very lax gun control laws. Homicide rates are linked more closely to the motivations of the population in question, than they are to the availability of guns. This is my only real point.
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates. Furthermore, our homicides which involve firearms, seldom involve firearms which are legally possessed.
I can agree that an ordinary citizen has absolutely no good reason to own an automatic or spray-fire weapon, but having a weapon adequate for self defense may indeed be more important in some regions of the world than others. Japan has a very low homicide rate and strict gun control laws, where the USA has relatively lax gun control laws, and a much higher homicide rate, however, the homicide rate among Japanese Americans is comparable to the homicide rate of Japan, which suggests that culture has a great deal more to do with homicide than gun control.
The trouble with ghost hunting, is that it is very difficult to quantify what a ghost is. How are you to find something, when you are unclear about what you're looking for? If you are looking for a tiger, then it's easy enough to consider that evidence of a tiger's recent presence might include footprints, fur, meal scraps and possibly excrement. Ghosts, on the other hand, apparently don't interact with the world in the same way we do.
People report feeling a chill when in contact with a ghost, but this may be psychosomatic. A thermal camera pointed at the person who is your best guess at who might encounter the ghost is probably called for here, but instead of sticking it on a tripod, it might be best to keep it in hand, so that in the event someone does have a chill, you can use it to track down any potential source.
Electronic Voice Phenomenon is also commonly reported. I would suggest using multiple recording devices distributed in overlapping regions of the location, so that any EVP which is picked up can be compared to other recording devices, so as to eliminate the possibility that the mysterious, muffled voice you've picked up, isn't just someone making an off-hand comment in the other room.
Photographs are also known to pick up ghostly apparitions, so go ahead and take plenty of pictures. You may need to do some research to figure out the ideal variety of camera. I've heard of some interesting results coming from Polaroid cameras, where entire sentences in Latin have been spelled out in the air, perceptible only to the camera. Digital cameras also have the ability to pick up things in the invisible light spectrum (hold down a button on a remote control, and point it at the camera-- the camera clearly picks up the light, but your eye does not), so you might get something interesting there, as well. Just the same, traditional film cameras have a long history of producing strange results. If you've got the budget for it, you might bring all three.
Since we don't know the precise nature of the creature being searched for, I think it's valid to use your imagination when choosing equipment. A tool to map the magnetic fields in the area, especially if you can map them in real-time or at least, in regular intervals, could possibly yield interesting results, when compared to a good baseline. Maybe you can find a type of film that reacts to an invisible spectrum of light? Radar or Sonar, even? You're looking for any anomalous data, which you will then seek an explanation for. When you find a collection of anomalies which cannot be explained by our current scientific understanding of the universe, and they have some manner of consistency with each other, then you may indeed have found a ghost; at which point, you'll continue your investigation, and see if you can replicate your results.
It seems an interesting project, and I'd love to know if any results come from it.
Slashdot Mirror
I could use a bit more "complicated" in my Windows experience. Windows 7 has an obnoxious habit of producing error messages that amount to, "Something went wrong!" without any further information that might help me to narrow down and solve the problem. If we can get a Microsoft that does away with this attitude of making things user-friendly to the point of excluding the advanced and knowledgeable user, then I will welcome the change.
As for why we don't build ships at a space station? The logistics of keeping a staff in orbit, and blasting parts into orbit so they can be assembled by staff in orbit, then blasting fuel into orbit so the ship can be fuelled, then blasting a crew and food supplies into orbit so that the ship can actually be launched are far more expensive than simply building craft on terra firma and blasting the whole kit and kaboodle into space. Until we're ready to start manned missions to deep space, it's simply not worth it, economically.
The logistics do seem quite daunting, but at the same time, removing launch and atmospheric capabilities from the ship's requirements may lend itself to new designs that handle space travel much more effectively, thereby making deep space missions much more practical. As well, the technology that goes into creating the space shipyard will contribute to the colonization of the moon, Mars, and many other worlds; not to mention that the facilities may well serve to produce much of the equipment necessary for said colonization. Also consider that once the facilities are there, the logistics of getting raw materials to it are likely to improve-- the benefactors will be keen on investing in infrastructure for getting the materials into orbit, first of all, but more significantly, the station itself will have the ability to build the vessels and equipment needed to mine the materials from space-borne objects.
There are indeed some technological hurdles to be leaped, but that's really what this whole thing is about, isn't it?
No records. I've done no scientific research, only casual observation. Over a few weeks, I might watch the way a girl interacts with those around her, and then I ask her, "Did such and such happen to you, around the time you were so and so age?" and the answer is often affirmative, though sometimes with some minor corrections. I haven't had occasion to do so in a number of years, but women were always much easier to read than men, and younger easier than older.
As I said, it's completely unscientific and I wouldn't call it reliable, but I've been able to do better than guess, and I've obtained results with useful accuracy.
You make very good points. Such a system would be hazardous to a society which values liberty, without effective safeguards in place to prevent corruption.
Police services could be outsourced to private security firms easily enough, and conceivably for much cheaper than current state-run police organizations. A private security firm could take convicts for labor, in exchange for their police services. The security firm might even pay the local government for rights to the criminals they catch, depending on how profitable the back-end of that turns out to be. The courts, however, would necessarily be state-run with regular audits to check for corruption among the judges.
I don't know that this would be better or worse than our current system. There may be arguments to be made concerning human rights and such, but then again, our current system places incentive on writing tickets for petty offenses (supposing a patrol officer earns $400 a day, then three tickets a day will make him profitable), but there is no incentive to catch a thief, beyond a hypothetical drive that a police officer might have to seek to do good in the world. Under a private security system, where profit is had by convicting criminals rather than inciting fines upon mildly misbehaved citizens, we might see more burglaries solved, and fewer speeding tickets.
L-R is a Japanese thing. In Chinese, it's R-W. Or so I've been told.
Actually, I've found female behavior to be easier to predict based on knowledge of personal history, as well as personal history easier to predict based on female behavior, than in males. I'd welcome correction on this, if someone can cite a reference (or at least provide a convincing logical argument), but it seems like men are less responsive to traumatic events than women.
The "GOD HATES FAGS" sort of Christian is a bigot first, and not much a "Christian" at all. Rather than following the instructions of our savior-- those being to love others and to leave the task of judgment to God --these people instead choose to use our God to justify their irrationality. They ignore the chief messages of the entire New Testament, and focus on a handful of passages taken out of context in the Old Testament. The passages cited as forbidding homosexuality are part of an enumeration of the laws of the ancient Jewish state, and specifically forbid men from engaging in sexual acts with other men, among other things including animals and women on their period.
Leviticus provides a long, and very specific list of people and things the Jews were not to have sex with (Interestingly, there is no mention at all of girl-on-girl action). This is all part of a very long list of general rules which promote the overall health of the society as a whole. There is no, "IF YOU HAVE THE GAY SEX THEN YOU'RE GO TO HELL". There is only, "Don't do that, it's gross."
I like Westerns. I like Sci-Fi. I really enjoyed Cowboy Bebop, but I never really got a "Western" vibe off of it. It seemed to me, to have more of a 1930's PI feel to it, with a twist of mob-drama.
For the life of me, I can't remember what episode it is, but I recall a scene in the original Star Trek where, in a conference room aboard the Enterprise, Dr. McCoy was reading out surprisingly detailed information from a terminal, the display interface of which, consisted of only a handful of variously colored lights.
There are other mitigating factors, the biggest of which, is how many people it takes to produce an adequate supply of the material to satisfy the needs of the population as a whole. If it is adequately difficult to produce in quantity that everyone basically needs to manufacture their own, then the economy doesn't change. However, if, for the sake of contrast, an adequate supply for the world can be produced by two people in an afternoon, then we run into a different problem. The new product obsoletes an entire industry, and with it, a great chunk of the world's income. Factory workers make up a great deal of the world's population, and when their income goes away, that spreads to have an impact on the service industry, the entertainment industry and on outward, like a cancer. Before long, virtually the only people with an income to purchase the raw material, are the people who produce it.
I'm not exactly sure how it works out from there. Either we take an altruistic approach, such as in the Star Trek universe, where every man works to the betterment of world and self, or we take on a more complex economy that has a substantially different balancing point.
The regions of California which are prone to earthquakes are all along the coast. The weather in these regions tends to be quite wet and humid (the fog in San Francisco borders on legendary), and as such, rust is a substantial problem for vehicles. Keeping the trucks harbored inside makes them much easier to maintain. Granted, Southern California earthquake regions tend to be drier, but again, it's easier for fire services to maintain their vehicles when they're kept inside-- not to mention that it's easier to get to them in an emergency, when they're kept in a location right next to the equipment.
The last time Nintendo tried to really "innovate" with The Legend of Zelda, we wound up with The Adventure of Link, with its mix of top-down maps and side scrolling. Though I personally enjoyed the hell out of Zelda 2, as it turns out, that sort of change just wasn't the proper formula for popularity. Tangentially, for those who forsake it, I'll point out that it did introduce a number of elements which persisted or re-appeared, including metered magic use, the hammer, and the downward jumping sword thrust. Furthermore, the side-scrolling gameplay serves as a functioning archetype for games of the 3D era, while the art style laid the perceptive foundation for that which is found in Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess.
In any case, I for one, have no issue with old franchises maintaining their core mechanics from one release to another. "The Legend of Zelda" isn't really just a NES game, so much as a type of game, featuring a core set of re-occurring elements, which get added to or tweaked from one installment to the next, as the technology improves. Having a gimmicky game (such as Link's Crossbow Training, for a local example) from time to time is fine, so long as the core is not abandoned in the main series.
What I want to know is this: At what point, exactly, did it become lawful for all of the largest corporations of an industry to organize in their collective best interests? How is it that Anti-Trust laws don't take organizations such as the MPAA and RIAA into account? Is it not a tenant of Capitalism, that entities offering the same type of product in an industry are meant to compete with one another, rather than band together to bully their consumer base into making purchases they might not otherwise?
I used to think it was odd, seeing my supervisor do that at work, when I suggested a site to him which might not necessarily be work related. Some great time later, I realized why he did it that way-- If you type the URL into Google, it doesn't show up in the URL bar's history. This was before private browsing and that sort of thing started showing up, and while he wasn't too concerned about what someone might find if they pulled up the browser history, he didn't necessarily want everywhere he's recently gone to appear if someone just happened to sit down at his desk to use the web.
Planets orbiting in regions which we identify as a star's "habitable" zone are potential locations to establish colonies.
Beyond that, if we go there and find intelligent life, then it'll be much easier to establish a relationship with a species that breathes our air, has an overlapping thermal range of comfort, and lives under gravity and pressure conditions comparable to our own. Once we've made successful first contact a few times, and gotten the hang of intergalactic diplomacy, then we can worry about making friends with the damn Tholians.
That would be a tremendously ineffective way of locking down the internet. Seizure of DNS server domains will prevent domain names from being resolved, but if the IP address is known, then the site can still be reached. Furthermore, certain types of gateway DNS servers cache domains that have been looked up, so a great deal of Facebook users sitting in their offices may not even notice for a while.
And thanks for all the fish!
Apples and Oranges share all sorts of qualities that can be compared, if you are seeking only to identify the differences between the fruits. The metaphor in question, however, is meant in contrast to comparing apples to apples, or oranges to oranges, to ascertain the quality of any given instance of the object. If you are to judge an orange's quality on the standards which you'd judge an apple's quality, then you'll have a very difficult time, indeed.
While this is true, you must also consider that more skin cells are required to contain the increased volume of the fatty tissues.
I submit that the successful anti-piracy measure they employed, was OtherOS as a distraction tactic for those with the ability to crack the system. It clearly wasn't their encryption methods that were adequate for the job.
From what you said, the logical conclusion is that the strict gun control laws are a response to the high homicide rates. To prove the reverse you must establish that an *increase* in gun availability in the general population deters homicides, which is not what you said.
I merely stated that culture is a more important influence over suicide rates, than gun control laws.
When homicide rates fluctuate, it's difficult to pin-point an exact cause, as gun control laws are not the only contributing factor. However, it's worth noting that Florida, Texas and Michigan have adopted Right-to-Carry laws in 1987, 1996 and 2001 respectively, and in each case the states have seen reduced murder rates, thereafter, though (based on the data I've seen) Texas was already experiencing a drop in murder rates when their Right-to-Carry law was enacted, and Michigan's homicide rate didn't change nearly so much as the other two states. Florida's change was much more pronounced, with a 36% reduction in the state-wide homicide rate by 1996. This information suggests that a Right-to-Carry law will improve a homicide rate, but it's hardly conclusive, without knowing what other contributing factors may have existed in that period.
There are places which have strict gun control laws and low crime rates, and there are places which have strict gun control laws and high crime rates. Both circumstances also occur with very lax gun control laws. Homicide rates are linked more closely to the motivations of the population in question, than they are to the availability of guns. This is my only real point.
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates. Furthermore, our homicides which involve firearms, seldom involve firearms which are legally possessed.
I can agree that an ordinary citizen has absolutely no good reason to own an automatic or spray-fire weapon, but having a weapon adequate for self defense may indeed be more important in some regions of the world than others. Japan has a very low homicide rate and strict gun control laws, where the USA has relatively lax gun control laws, and a much higher homicide rate, however, the homicide rate among Japanese Americans is comparable to the homicide rate of Japan, which suggests that culture has a great deal more to do with homicide than gun control.
The trouble with ghost hunting, is that it is very difficult to quantify what a ghost is. How are you to find something, when you are unclear about what you're looking for? If you are looking for a tiger, then it's easy enough to consider that evidence of a tiger's recent presence might include footprints, fur, meal scraps and possibly excrement. Ghosts, on the other hand, apparently don't interact with the world in the same way we do.
People report feeling a chill when in contact with a ghost, but this may be psychosomatic. A thermal camera pointed at the person who is your best guess at who might encounter the ghost is probably called for here, but instead of sticking it on a tripod, it might be best to keep it in hand, so that in the event someone does have a chill, you can use it to track down any potential source.
Electronic Voice Phenomenon is also commonly reported. I would suggest using multiple recording devices distributed in overlapping regions of the location, so that any EVP which is picked up can be compared to other recording devices, so as to eliminate the possibility that the mysterious, muffled voice you've picked up, isn't just someone making an off-hand comment in the other room.
Photographs are also known to pick up ghostly apparitions, so go ahead and take plenty of pictures. You may need to do some research to figure out the ideal variety of camera. I've heard of some interesting results coming from Polaroid cameras, where entire sentences in Latin have been spelled out in the air, perceptible only to the camera. Digital cameras also have the ability to pick up things in the invisible light spectrum (hold down a button on a remote control, and point it at the camera-- the camera clearly picks up the light, but your eye does not), so you might get something interesting there, as well. Just the same, traditional film cameras have a long history of producing strange results. If you've got the budget for it, you might bring all three.
Since we don't know the precise nature of the creature being searched for, I think it's valid to use your imagination when choosing equipment. A tool to map the magnetic fields in the area, especially if you can map them in real-time or at least, in regular intervals, could possibly yield interesting results, when compared to a good baseline. Maybe you can find a type of film that reacts to an invisible spectrum of light? Radar or Sonar, even? You're looking for any anomalous data, which you will then seek an explanation for. When you find a collection of anomalies which cannot be explained by our current scientific understanding of the universe, and they have some manner of consistency with each other, then you may indeed have found a ghost; at which point, you'll continue your investigation, and see if you can replicate your results.
It seems an interesting project, and I'd love to know if any results come from it.
Those addresses were lost to subnetting.