"Love is beautiful, like birds that sing." is more secure than "Lib,lbts". Why are you making your password less secure?
"Lib,lbts" is not brute-forceable in most contexts, and the concept of having to type in 40 characters every time you want log in is absurd. And if you don't think Lib,lbts is secure enough, then what about Lib,lbts.Linu,lriapov? It's a lot more secure than "Love is beautiful, like birds that sing" and takes half the time to type in, with half the risk of typos and all that comes with length.
There are better routes than "Correct Horse Battery Staple".
Think about how memory champions memorize arbitrary data: yes, it's visual, but it's not random words stuck together like "Correct horse battery staple", it's a meaningful scene, something you could describe with a sentence. Now, of course, that's too bulky to make a password. But you can deal with that easily - the easiest way is just take the first letter of each word, an abbreviation / acronym password. For the first sentence in my post, depending on how you apply the rules you may get something like tabrtchbs or Tabrt"CHBS" or the like.
Now, obviously on an attacker can reduce the search space with statistical analysis of sentences, but overall sentences yield an extremely random password - moreso than "Correct Horse Battery Staple", it's much shorter, and it's easier to memorize. And if the security of such a standard approach isn't good enough, you can apply your own extra rules, such letter substitutions, arbitrarily inserted characters, change the order of the word or what letter you pick from each word, etc.
Oh, hey, just looked it up. Seems that there's wide belief among the skeptics that it works based on a really simple trick: a rigged plug. Inside the plug he's got the ground wire swapped with a live wire. So inside the box he can at will make the power draw seem to disappear, because they're not measuring the ground wire. He's actually refused a million dollar prize from a skeptic who wanted to test his device in a way that would include measuring current from the ground wire. Funny, that.;)
Also looks like in all of his previous incarnations there were no unusual isotopic concentrations measured in the ash. So funny that all of the sudden after facing that criticism his reactor changes how it works and starts outputting extremely enriched stuff in the "ash". Funny how that works.;)
Publish what for review? This "paper" is not peer-reviewed, and would never pass peer review. And it doesn't take doing stuff behind their backs, their setup is so bad. And FYI, have you ever looked up Rossi's background? This is his third scam. His first landed him in jail, it was an "organic waste to oil" company that took the waste, illegally dumped it, and never made a drop of oil. His second was "20% efficient thermoelectric generators", which were anything but.
Just a random thought, the device could be profitting from distorting the phases on the AC supply. Multimeters designed to read AC power can give false readings when presented with a non-sinosoidal supply.
The papers' commentary about the nuclear "changes" seems really over the top, leaping on to the cosmological significance of lithium 7 depletion and the like. They don't describe how this ash materializes but it's quite possible that it's just a non-nuclear isotopic enrichment process. Another possibility is less pretty - that some parts were designed to specifically burn to ash, and these were made of enriched isotopes.
If it's so legitimate then why isn't this paper peer-reviewed and published in a legitimate scientific journal?
If it doesn't meet the standards of peer review, then it's hokum. If it does, then either: * They don't plan to publish (really? scientists who think they're on to something world changing but don't want it to be evaluated and accepted by the broader scientific community?) * They plan to publish later but are going to the press first (an extremely bad practice that gets scorn heaped upon scientists)
The fact that you're seeing this without it having gone through peer review is not a confidence-building sign.
Sorry, 70s level tech is a still massive, massive, massive interconnected tech tree reaching across the globe with billions of people involved and billions of tonnes of industrial equipment involving over a hundred elements comprising hundreds of thousands of compounds used to produce tens of millions of types of industrial components.
Just think of the concept of a petrochemicals industry on Mars where you lack oil as an input - petrochemicals having a tremendous range of differing properties being one of the most fundamental aspects for modern space technology. Your first step has to be to make oil in the first place, which means freezing out CO2 from Mars's incredibly sparse atmosphere. You also have to spend a tremendous amount of energy electrolysing mined water ice (mining being a very resource-and-wear intensive process) to make hydrogen (which tends to embrittle the materials that work with it, and electrolysis itself is hardly a wear-free process - and we won't even get into the power aspect). Then you need to make town gas from a high temperature catalyst bed reaction (which you poison with time and have to regenerate, and repair the reactor itself). Then you have to turn the town gas into oil via fischer-tropsch, again, another high temperature catalyst bed reaction. But the chains from fischer-tropsch aren't going to be suitable for all products, so there's a number of other processes with various consumables. Then you've got your right mix of hydrocarbons, but that's hardly all you need, most petrochemical products aren't just carbon and hydrogen, there's chlorine, fluorine, and all sorts of other things to react with it in many different processes, nasty chemicals with long tails... it's just a tremendously, tremendously difficult task.
This stuff is very hard to do as-is on Earth with massive resources and international trade and billions of people. On Mars? No time soon, that's for sure...
Except for the fact that to maintain that crew with sledgehammers, you have to make sledgehammers (yes, they do wear), but more importantly, to maintain your crew you need and vast quantities of food, oxygen, CO2 scrubbing, space suits and repairs, lodging, light, medicine, and about 50 other things, each of which have massive interlocked tech trees of their own.
Then we get into the efficiency problem. Yes, you *can* cut efficiency - for example, using super-slow, inefficient processors in your example. But every time you cut efficiency on one thing, you increase the demands on everything else. You can afford to lose some degree of efficiency, but what you absolutely can't do is just act like it's a nothing thing.
And it's not like you face this efficiency problem for just one thing - say, processors. You face it for *everything*. Want to cut the list of plastics you have to manufacture? Sure, you can, but that means that you're going to have parts in different environments wear down and break faster, which means more replacement parts. Want to use iron magnets? Fine, but that means that your motors are going to have to be way larger and heavier, which means a lot more manufacturing for all of the other components and a lot more wear on your machines from the added weight. And on and on down the line.
If your response to the tech tree problem is just "simplify even if it costs you efficiency", you're going to eliminate yourself from the game long before you've simplified even a percent of the tech tree.
It should also be pointed out that most people respond to such criticisms by saying "But past explorers on Earth did it"! The thing is, humans are adapted to live on Earth. In some locations you don't need any technology whatsoever to live. On most others, usually the minimum is is no more complicated than something along the lines of the ability to make rudimentary clothing and and make some variety of handmade weapon or trap.
Advancing technology increases one's odds of survival, increases an area's carrying capacity, and vastly increases comfort, but ultimately it comes down to, this is the planet you evolved to live on. If you want to live off planet, though, you must use modern technology. You can't just pop on over there and bootstrap it. And if you want to make use of modern technology, well, you have to pay the price to produce it: unimaginably vast mining, refining, production, and transportation chains. Sorry, but that's what modern technology is built upon.
And how do you replace the drill bits? How do you keep your drilling machine moving - are you making all of its its consumable / wearable parts? How do you get the materials to patch leaks in your pipes as they arise, fix your broken valves, fix your pumps, and a whole host of other issues? How do you produce the power to melt the ice in a sustainable manner? If its nuclear, how do you refine the fuel? If it's solar cells, how do you make them to replace them when they break? If it's heliostats, how do you make the control electronics and the motors?
And for every one of those things, how do you make the raw materials for them, and the hardware that makes it. And for each of those raw materials, how do you make its raw materials and the hardware that makes it? And for each piece of hardware... you get the picture. Modern human technology is built on IMMENSELY large intermeshed technology trees. Sure, with a huge multi-hundred-billion dollar research project to compress it down you might be able to bring it down to say 1% of its materials / parts, but it's still going to be a massive technology tree.
And of course, you have to find all of the base elements on Mars, in quantities that can justify mining. And of course they're not going to all be next to each other, so better get started on your highly efficient planet-wide transportation system.
And yes, efficiency really, really matters, every step of the way. If your solution to something is to use some Super Universal Plasma Centrifuge Refiner to separate out elements from ore and some Super Universal Molecular Assembler to make whatever chemical you need at a rate of a few grams an hour, and some Super Universal 3d Printer to print out whatever pieces of whatever spare part of whatever type every few days, and a Super Universal Assembler of robot arms that can put anything together, and to feed this whole chain you've got the planetary-wide mining and transportation system and extensive power and consumables needs and part wear, then you're on an irreversible downward slope. And the equation gets way harder once you throw humans into the equation because their needs are just so great. The simple fact is, you not only have to reproduce Earth's tech trees, but you need to do it efficiently.
The scale of the challenge of true indepence from Earth is such that I really have trouble envisioning achieving anything even close in the next several hundred years. Now, spare part imports and the like, while producing your own food, water, oxygen, and maybe a couple types of bulk construction materials cast into a couple commonly needed standardized forms? That may be more acheivable. But you're still going to need heavy rockets shooting up parts and hard-to-produce raw materials to you at regular intervals, or your "colony" will enter an irreversible downward slope, and "human willpower" from the doomed colonists isn't going to conjure up, say, a couple tons of neodymium or a self-sustaining CPU manufacturing facility.
There's much better ways to colonize the written word than spaces. Try page margins, there's lots of room and they don't interfere as much with legibility.
Which is just the same old "It's just an engineering problem!" trope that we've been hearing from fusion researchers for decades
So are you trying to claim that fusion reactors haven't achieved orders of magnitude better results in the past several decades than they were getting before?
The nice thing about LED, even moreso than HPS, is the narrow spectrum. It's easy to add a narrowband filter to astronomical observations without interfering with everything else.
They use this stupid "LED watts" thing where they rate the lamps by the nominal output of the LEDs but underdrive them at half the power for longevity reasons, but still act like it's producing at full output.
Some manufacturers are honest about it, though - Black Dog makes my biggest lamp and they list them for what they are. But most of the Chinese stuff you get off Ebay uses the BS measures.
That said, maybe pot is different. I'm probably one of the few people on the planet doing non-commercial indoor plant growing under artificial lights that's *not* pot;)
Old LED grow lights are not like new ones. I've followed the whole transition. I tried them early and got poor results and had to add in fluorescent / HID supplementation to balance the spectrum. I now have no need for that, they're just all-around better than conventional alternatives.
And the award for misinterpreting research goes to...
Did you actually read the paper? It's about the benefit of adding different kinds of light in strong white light and finds that green helps most in such a situation because the oversaturation of the outer chloroplasts from red and blue light. There are, of course, countless papers out there that show the main actually tested usage of light is poorer for green, including research that cites that paper (the one I linked found that in some circumstances giving more green light can actually decrease growth - so hey if you like burning more energy to decrease your plants growth...)
Slashdot Mirror
"Lib,lbts" is not brute-forceable in most contexts, and the concept of having to type in 40 characters every time you want log in is absurd. And if you don't think Lib,lbts is secure enough, then what about Lib,lbts.Linu,lriapov? It's a lot more secure than "Love is beautiful, like birds that sing" and takes half the time to type in, with half the risk of typos and all that comes with length.
There are better routes than "Correct Horse Battery Staple".
Think about how memory champions memorize arbitrary data: yes, it's visual, but it's not random words stuck together like "Correct horse battery staple", it's a meaningful scene, something you could describe with a sentence. Now, of course, that's too bulky to make a password. But you can deal with that easily - the easiest way is just take the first letter of each word, an abbreviation / acronym password. For the first sentence in my post, depending on how you apply the rules you may get something like tabrtchbs or Tabrt"CHBS" or the like.
Now, obviously on an attacker can reduce the search space with statistical analysis of sentences, but overall sentences yield an extremely random password - moreso than "Correct Horse Battery Staple", it's much shorter, and it's easier to memorize. And if the security of such a standard approach isn't good enough, you can apply your own extra rules, such letter substitutions, arbitrarily inserted characters, change the order of the word or what letter you pick from each word, etc.
Oh, hey, just looked it up. Seems that there's wide belief among the skeptics that it works based on a really simple trick: a rigged plug. Inside the plug he's got the ground wire swapped with a live wire. So inside the box he can at will make the power draw seem to disappear, because they're not measuring the ground wire. He's actually refused a million dollar prize from a skeptic who wanted to test his device in a way that would include measuring current from the ground wire. Funny, that. ;)
Also looks like in all of his previous incarnations there were no unusual isotopic concentrations measured in the ash. So funny that all of the sudden after facing that criticism his reactor changes how it works and starts outputting extremely enriched stuff in the "ash". Funny how that works. ;)
Publish what for review? This "paper" is not peer-reviewed, and would never pass peer review. And it doesn't take doing stuff behind their backs, their setup is so bad. And FYI, have you ever looked up Rossi's background? This is his third scam. His first landed him in jail, it was an "organic waste to oil" company that took the waste, illegally dumped it, and never made a drop of oil. His second was "20% efficient thermoelectric generators", which were anything but.
Just a random thought, the device could be profitting from distorting the phases on the AC supply. Multimeters designed to read AC power can give false readings when presented with a non-sinosoidal supply.
The papers' commentary about the nuclear "changes" seems really over the top, leaping on to the cosmological significance of lithium 7 depletion and the like. They don't describe how this ash materializes but it's quite possible that it's just a non-nuclear isotopic enrichment process. Another possibility is less pretty - that some parts were designed to specifically burn to ash, and these were made of enriched isotopes.
If it's so legitimate then why isn't this paper peer-reviewed and published in a legitimate scientific journal?
If it doesn't meet the standards of peer review, then it's hokum.
If it does, then either:
* They don't plan to publish (really? scientists who think they're on to something world changing but don't want it to be evaluated and accepted by the broader scientific community?)
* They plan to publish later but are going to the press first (an extremely bad practice that gets scorn heaped upon scientists)
The fact that you're seeing this without it having gone through peer review is not a confidence-building sign.
Sorry, 70s level tech is a still massive, massive, massive interconnected tech tree reaching across the globe with billions of people involved and billions of tonnes of industrial equipment involving over a hundred elements comprising hundreds of thousands of compounds used to produce tens of millions of types of industrial components.
Just think of the concept of a petrochemicals industry on Mars where you lack oil as an input - petrochemicals having a tremendous range of differing properties being one of the most fundamental aspects for modern space technology. Your first step has to be to make oil in the first place, which means freezing out CO2 from Mars's incredibly sparse atmosphere. You also have to spend a tremendous amount of energy electrolysing mined water ice (mining being a very resource-and-wear intensive process) to make hydrogen (which tends to embrittle the materials that work with it, and electrolysis itself is hardly a wear-free process - and we won't even get into the power aspect). Then you need to make town gas from a high temperature catalyst bed reaction (which you poison with time and have to regenerate, and repair the reactor itself). Then you have to turn the town gas into oil via fischer-tropsch, again, another high temperature catalyst bed reaction. But the chains from fischer-tropsch aren't going to be suitable for all products, so there's a number of other processes with various consumables. Then you've got your right mix of hydrocarbons, but that's hardly all you need, most petrochemical products aren't just carbon and hydrogen, there's chlorine, fluorine, and all sorts of other things to react with it in many different processes, nasty chemicals with long tails... it's just a tremendously, tremendously difficult task.
This stuff is very hard to do as-is on Earth with massive resources and international trade and billions of people. On Mars? No time soon, that's for sure...
Except for the fact that to maintain that crew with sledgehammers, you have to make sledgehammers (yes, they do wear), but more importantly, to maintain your crew you need and vast quantities of food, oxygen, CO2 scrubbing, space suits and repairs, lodging, light, medicine, and about 50 other things, each of which have massive interlocked tech trees of their own.
You've made the problem far worse, not better.
Then we get into the efficiency problem. Yes, you *can* cut efficiency - for example, using super-slow, inefficient processors in your example. But every time you cut efficiency on one thing, you increase the demands on everything else. You can afford to lose some degree of efficiency, but what you absolutely can't do is just act like it's a nothing thing.
And it's not like you face this efficiency problem for just one thing - say, processors. You face it for *everything*. Want to cut the list of plastics you have to manufacture? Sure, you can, but that means that you're going to have parts in different environments wear down and break faster, which means more replacement parts. Want to use iron magnets? Fine, but that means that your motors are going to have to be way larger and heavier, which means a lot more manufacturing for all of the other components and a lot more wear on your machines from the added weight. And on and on down the line.
If your response to the tech tree problem is just "simplify even if it costs you efficiency", you're going to eliminate yourself from the game long before you've simplified even a percent of the tech tree.
Argumentum ad logicam.
It should also be pointed out that most people respond to such criticisms by saying "But past explorers on Earth did it"! The thing is, humans are adapted to live on Earth. In some locations you don't need any technology whatsoever to live. On most others, usually the minimum is is no more complicated than something along the lines of the ability to make rudimentary clothing and and make some variety of handmade weapon or trap.
Advancing technology increases one's odds of survival, increases an area's carrying capacity, and vastly increases comfort, but ultimately it comes down to, this is the planet you evolved to live on. If you want to live off planet, though, you must use modern technology. You can't just pop on over there and bootstrap it. And if you want to make use of modern technology, well, you have to pay the price to produce it: unimaginably vast mining, refining, production, and transportation chains. Sorry, but that's what modern technology is built upon.
And how do you replace the drill bits? How do you keep your drilling machine moving - are you making all of its its consumable / wearable parts? How do you get the materials to patch leaks in your pipes as they arise, fix your broken valves, fix your pumps, and a whole host of other issues? How do you produce the power to melt the ice in a sustainable manner? If its nuclear, how do you refine the fuel? If it's solar cells, how do you make them to replace them when they break? If it's heliostats, how do you make the control electronics and the motors?
And for every one of those things, how do you make the raw materials for them, and the hardware that makes it. And for each of those raw materials, how do you make its raw materials and the hardware that makes it? And for each piece of hardware... you get the picture. Modern human technology is built on IMMENSELY large intermeshed technology trees. Sure, with a huge multi-hundred-billion dollar research project to compress it down you might be able to bring it down to say 1% of its materials / parts, but it's still going to be a massive technology tree.
And of course, you have to find all of the base elements on Mars, in quantities that can justify mining. And of course they're not going to all be next to each other, so better get started on your highly efficient planet-wide transportation system.
And yes, efficiency really, really matters, every step of the way. If your solution to something is to use some Super Universal Plasma Centrifuge Refiner to separate out elements from ore and some Super Universal Molecular Assembler to make whatever chemical you need at a rate of a few grams an hour, and some Super Universal 3d Printer to print out whatever pieces of whatever spare part of whatever type every few days, and a Super Universal Assembler of robot arms that can put anything together, and to feed this whole chain you've got the planetary-wide mining and transportation system and extensive power and consumables needs and part wear, then you're on an irreversible downward slope. And the equation gets way harder once you throw humans into the equation because their needs are just so great. The simple fact is, you not only have to reproduce Earth's tech trees, but you need to do it efficiently.
The scale of the challenge of true indepence from Earth is such that I really have trouble envisioning achieving anything even close in the next several hundred years. Now, spare part imports and the like, while producing your own food, water, oxygen, and maybe a couple types of bulk construction materials cast into a couple commonly needed standardized forms? That may be more acheivable. But you're still going to need heavy rockets shooting up parts and hard-to-produce raw materials to you at regular intervals, or your "colony" will enter an irreversible downward slope, and "human willpower" from the doomed colonists isn't going to conjure up, say, a couple tons of neodymium or a self-sustaining CPU manufacturing facility.
Thetproblemrwithespaceacolonizationdisiyoutcan'
There's much better ways to colonize the written word than spaces. Try page margins, there's lots of room and they don't interfere as much with legibility.
So are you trying to claim that fusion reactors haven't achieved orders of magnitude better results in the past several decades than they were getting before?
The nice thing about LED, even moreso than HPS, is the narrow spectrum. It's easy to add a narrowband filter to astronomical observations without interfering with everything else.
That's a pretty lousy CFL and a very good LED. For example, This CFL is 13 watts for 900 lumens, and this LED is 10 watts for 600 lumens.
No, they are not "producing them", that was an (unrealistic) lab test of a single lab-scale LED, not a commercially mass-produced full bulb.
Go find me an actual commercial LED bulb and show me anywhere remotely near that lumens per watts. Until then, please stop spreading misinformation.
Wow, finally something we agree about here.
They use this stupid "LED watts" thing where they rate the lamps by the nominal output of the LEDs but underdrive them at half the power for longevity reasons, but still act like it's producing at full output.
Some manufacturers are honest about it, though - Black Dog makes my biggest lamp and they list them for what they are. But most of the Chinese stuff you get off Ebay uses the BS measures.
I've already countered you elsewhere on this thread, no need to do it again.
And FYI, my lamp isn't monochromatic, it has 13 peaks, including UV. What, you think an LED grow lamp has only one type of LEDs?
Lux? As a measure useful for plant growth? Hahahahahaa!!! ;)
Re, monochromatic: "You keep using that word. I do not believe it means what you think it means."
You're confusing lab scale demonstrations of individual LEDs with full commercial LED lightbulbs. The two are not comparable.
Don't look at lab tech announcements. Go compare bulbs available at the store, you'll see what I mean.
That said, maybe pot is different. I'm probably one of the few people on the planet doing non-commercial indoor plant growing under artificial lights that's *not* pot ;)
Old LED grow lights are not like new ones. I've followed the whole transition. I tried them early and got poor results and had to add in fluorescent / HID supplementation to balance the spectrum. I now have no need for that, they're just all-around better than conventional alternatives.
And the award for misinterpreting research goes to...
Did you actually read the paper? It's about the benefit of adding different kinds of light in strong white light and finds that green helps most in such a situation because the oversaturation of the outer chloroplasts from red and blue light. There are, of course, countless papers out there that show the main actually tested usage of light is poorer for green, including research that cites that paper (the one I linked found that in some circumstances giving more green light can actually decrease growth - so hey if you like burning more energy to decrease your plants growth...)
No, that's an announcement for a project to try to invent a way to make one. An announcement most notably short on the "how" aspect.
Any particular reason you linked back to this very article yet gave it a different title that only appears on the internet in your comment?