Except that the Wright Brothers provided the world with photographic proof of flight and a date. If one is going to debate the meaning of "powered flight", I say "let them, b/c thats all they can cling to".
In reality, the WB's demonstration of flight provided the foundation for the aviation principals.
I wouldn't call it a map, since he was holding a hand-held antenna, and the GPS only reports the position of the plane. If someone maps out all the access points using the GPS coordinates, it'll more than likely look like a single line across the county. The AP's should fall generally along that line, but at 1400 ft, they could probably be a mile away (or more) in either direction.
The speed of light is constant. What they are doing is having photons absorbed by atoms in the medium which are later emitted. The velocity at which the photons travel is constant.
What they've really done is created a medium which slows the asorption and emittion of the photons so drastically that it is descernable by the naked eye. What they have NOT done is altered C. In other words, what they've done is the equivalent to shining a flash light through water and saying they've slowed the speed of light. This is drastically different from actually slowing the velocity of the photons through a vaccuum. In their case, their medium is constantly absorbing and re-emitting the photons. In essense, the photons that emerge from the other end are not the same photons that entered it. They are equivalent copies. Such is what happens with glass or any other transparent medium.
.. but it is storing the photons in an atom. Unless this experiment is being done in a vaccuum, the photons are being absorbed and re-emitted continuously through the medium. What they are merely doing is slowing down how long the atoms retain the photon for. Its a neat trick, but nothing new that hasn't been done before.
Also "slowing down light" is hardly an accurate description of whats happenning. In reality the velocity of the photons does not change, its merely that they are retained by the atoms longer.
The grandparent post is way way wrong; there are no government/military systems for which there is no standard. If it doesn't have a committee-decided standard, it isn't allowed. Period.
Thats a crock, my friend. Los Alamos was notorious for having machines stashed everywhere until the Dept of Energy started slamming the scientists after the Chinese stole secrets. Nobody cares about the Dept of Agriculture etc., so nobody has slammed them for their insecurities.
Every barrack in the military has their own freaking insecure webserver, so I fail to see how your claim is relevent.
When it comes to Top Secret networks, you can say they are strict in that regard.
I'm sure there is little to no standard on de-classified computer systems in the govt. When it comes to classified systems and networks, the government is pretty damn secure.
The problem as I see it from the ZDNet article is that secretaries and such have unsecured linux/windows/etc machines sitting under a desk running some support application. Nobody really cares enough to secure it (if they even know it exists).
You can potentially use any language you want. Unfortunately right now you need to build a compiler for the bytecode.
There are apparently numerous "top secret" languages being developed for the.NET Framework which will compile using VS.NET. Just how the average joe can utilize them, I do not know.
Give it time, there will eventually be support for more languages.
For help with development on PocketPC some colleagues of mine and I have created a PocketPC-Development mailing list on yahoo groups: PocketPC-Development
It is still in its infancy, but we have several whizz developers who know everything about WinCE and the.NET CF. There are also links to articles, useful utilities, etc.
No offense, but Bill Gates has 40,000 FULL TIME EMPLOYEES. Thats 40,000 people doing what he says 8 hrs/day on demand. Linus might have 100,000 contributors, but less than 1% are active regularly and even less than that are full time devotees.
If Linus had anywhere near the resources that Billy has, then Linux would be a Desktop competitor.
I don't have the time to do the Math, but honestly showing the amount of energy necessary to even make a remotely economical dent in the price of electricity, combined with the fact that the source and destinations are _constantly_ in motion seems easily disterous to me.
Compare the energy output from 3-Mile-Island (America's worst nuclear power incident) with massive beams of microwaves pointed at a moving target at distances and speeds large enough where the speed of light needs to be taken into account. A mishap at any given moment could irradiate any give point on the globe. If you kill 1 person, its still more dangerous than Nuclear Power.
Because the Moon is such a safe place? Can you explain to me how you can get TONS of purified material safely to the ground on Earth? Right after you explain to me just how you would get it off the Moon, of course... Don't give me that "water on the south pole" bullshit either. The only thing the Moon is good for is as a stop off point for further destinations and tourism. Other than that, its a cool object in the sky.
So just because the gains are far away means it's not worth the money?
YES. Especially when people are claiming there are commercial benefits. If there were commerical benefits to putting people on the Moon, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates would be the FIRST to fund such ventures.
First of all, irradiating the atmosphere with microwaves is far more dangerous than a nuclear power plant.
Secondly, The Earth is a moving target relative to the Earth. How exactly do these people intend to beam this light to Earth? The Moon is not in a geostationary orbit. It also rotates and thus any given point is not facing the Earth 15 out of 30 days a month.
Having said that, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is both technically feasible AND cheaper than lacing all of Australia with solar panels or EVEN putting them in low Earth orbit.
Once we managed to get the microwaves to Earth, what do we do with them? Have it boil water to turn turbines? Have them hit more solar panels? Does anyone understand how much energy we'd have to provision from the Moon in order to overcome the energy already beaming down on us from the Sun?
China doesn't have the money to go to the Moon on its own. They've received on the order of 2-3 Billion dollars in aid from the international community for Humanitarian purposes. Guess how much they've spent on getting a man into space... $2B. There's an excellent article in the Economist this month about it.
What exists on the Moon that cannot be found or created at a price tag magnitudes lower on the Earth? When we talk about going to the Moon, we're talking about Billions of dollars. That being said, I'm a _HUGE_ space and astronomy nut, but I do not see how going there will improve anything other than our nationalism. Perhaps it may help open the way for future cost effective space travel, BUT we are by no means anywhere near the point where we can justify the govt subsidizing such expenditures because the gains are VERY far away.
Yes, space gave us Tang and Velcro but putting Shuttles into orbit and people on the Moon have not cured _any_ diseases. I would *love* to see Americans on the Moon again and I'd even be willing to help front the bill, BUT the Country does not consider this important.
Here is a graph of CO2 ppmv and the correlating lower atomospheric temperature for the last 2000 years as determined from glaciers. Graph Here
As you can see, the Temperature is highly erratic, while CO2 concentrations have been nearly static until recently. We have yet to see a difinitive trend. Don't let the number of plotted points towards the present confuse your judgement.... we have yet to see "hot" days like there were less than 500 years ago.
Correction: The WARMING OF THE PLANET CURRENTLY BELIEVED BY GRANOLA EATING CRUNCHIES TO BE SOLELY CAUSED BY CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE may be the result of an increase in Flux from the Sun.
Regardless, I think you know what I was getting at.
Whats even more interesting is that there are fairly solid theories that solar flare activity is directly related to the mean global temperature. In other words, the green house effect may very well be *mostly* caused by the Sun, rather than CO2 in the atmosphere.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the Wright Brothers provided the world with photographic proof of flight and a date. If one is going to debate the meaning of "powered flight", I say "let them, b/c thats all they can cling to".
In reality, the WB's demonstration of flight provided the foundation for the aviation principals.
I wouldn't call it a map, since he was holding a hand-held antenna, and the GPS only reports the position of the plane. If someone maps out all the access points using the GPS coordinates, it'll more than likely look like a single line across the county. The AP's should fall generally along that line, but at 1400 ft, they could probably be a mile away (or more) in either direction.
The speed of light is constant. What they are doing is having photons absorbed by atoms in the medium which are later emitted. The velocity at which the photons travel is constant.
What they've really done is created a medium which slows the asorption and emittion of the photons so drastically that it is descernable by the naked eye. What they have NOT done is altered C. In other words, what they've done is the equivalent to shining a flash light through water and saying they've slowed the speed of light. This is drastically different from actually slowing the velocity of the photons through a vaccuum. In their case, their medium is constantly absorbing and re-emitting the photons. In essense, the photons that emerge from the other end are not the same photons that entered it. They are equivalent copies. Such is what happens with glass or any other transparent medium.
.. but it is storing the photons in an atom. Unless this experiment is being done in a vaccuum, the photons are being absorbed and re-emitted continuously through the medium. What they are merely doing is slowing down how long the atoms retain the photon for. Its a neat trick, but nothing new that hasn't been done before.
Also "slowing down light" is hardly an accurate description of whats happenning. In reality the velocity of the photons does not change, its merely that they are retained by the atoms longer.
The grandparent post is way way wrong; there are no government/military systems for which there is no standard. If it doesn't have a committee-decided standard, it isn't allowed. Period.
Thats a crock, my friend. Los Alamos was notorious for having machines stashed everywhere until the Dept of Energy started slamming the scientists after the Chinese stole secrets. Nobody cares about the Dept of Agriculture etc., so nobody has slammed them for their insecurities.
Every barrack in the military has their own freaking insecure webserver, so I fail to see how your claim is relevent.
When it comes to Top Secret networks, you can say they are strict in that regard.
I'm sure there is little to no standard on de-classified computer systems in the govt. When it comes to classified systems and networks, the government is pretty damn secure.
The problem as I see it from the ZDNet article is that secretaries and such have unsecured linux/windows/etc machines sitting under a desk running some support application. Nobody really cares enough to secure it (if they even know it exists).
Netmeeting is dead. Its offspring is called Live Meeting and is much better than NetMeeting.
If you want free software, you have it. If you want *GOOD* software, go buy it.
This is a dupe posted long-tine ago.
You can potentially use any language you want. Unfortunately right now you need to build a compiler for the bytecode.
.NET Framework which will compile using VS.NET. Just how the average joe can utilize them, I do not know.
There are apparently numerous "top secret" languages being developed for the
Give it time, there will eventually be support for more languages.
For help with development on PocketPC some colleagues of mine and I have created a PocketPC-Development mailing list on yahoo groups:
.NET CF. There are also links to articles, useful utilities, etc.
PocketPC-Development
It is still in its infancy, but we have several whizz developers who know everything about WinCE and the
If you're interested in joining, click the link!!
No offense, but Bill Gates has 40,000 FULL TIME EMPLOYEES. Thats 40,000 people doing what he says 8 hrs/day on demand. Linus might have 100,000 contributors, but less than 1% are active regularly and even less than that are full time devotees.
If Linus had anywhere near the resources that Billy has, then Linux would be a Desktop competitor.
No, I don't forget.
The Space race did not cure any diseases.
Cleaner? Lets worry about making Fusion actually *work* first.
I don't have the time to do the Math, but honestly showing the amount of energy necessary to even make a remotely economical dent in the price of electricity, combined with the fact that the source and destinations are _constantly_ in motion seems easily disterous to me.
Compare the energy output from 3-Mile-Island (America's worst nuclear power incident) with massive beams of microwaves pointed at a moving target at distances and speeds large enough where the speed of light needs to be taken into account. A mishap at any given moment could irradiate any give point on the globe. If you kill 1 person, its still more dangerous than Nuclear Power.
Another thing...
Simply the ability to easily mine them.
There is nothing easy about mining the Moon. Otherwise it would be done regularly.
If WE don't need it right now, our grandchildren are almost ceratin to need it in the future.
Recycle.
Because the Moon is such a safe place? Can you explain to me how you can get TONS of purified material safely to the ground on Earth? Right after you explain to me just how you would get it off the Moon, of course... Don't give me that "water on the south pole" bullshit either. The only thing the Moon is good for is as a stop off point for further destinations and tourism. Other than that, its a cool object in the sky.
So just because the gains are far away means it's not worth the money?
YES. Especially when people are claiming there are commercial benefits. If there were commerical benefits to putting people on the Moon, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates would be the FIRST to fund such ventures.
These space trucks will then be able to bring these materials back to Earth.
Because there isn't enough shit here already? What materials are found on the Moon that you cannot find here or manufacture here? Please explain.
First of all, irradiating the atmosphere with microwaves is far more dangerous than a nuclear power plant.
Secondly, The Earth is a moving target relative to the Earth. How exactly do these people intend to beam this light to Earth? The Moon is not in a geostationary orbit. It also rotates and thus any given point is not facing the Earth 15 out of 30 days a month.
Having said that, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is both technically feasible AND cheaper than lacing all of Australia with solar panels or EVEN putting them in low Earth orbit.
Once we managed to get the microwaves to Earth, what do we do with them? Have it boil water to turn turbines? Have them hit more solar panels? Does anyone understand how much energy we'd have to provision from the Moon in order to overcome the energy already beaming down on us from the Sun?
China doesn't have the money to go to the Moon on its own. They've received on the order of 2-3 Billion dollars in aid from the international community for Humanitarian purposes. Guess how much they've spent on getting a man into space... $2B. There's an excellent article in the Economist this month about it.
What exists on the Moon that cannot be found or created at a price tag magnitudes lower on the Earth?
When we talk about going to the Moon, we're talking about Billions of dollars. That being said, I'm a _HUGE_ space and astronomy nut, but I do not see how going there will improve anything other than our nationalism. Perhaps it may help open the way for future cost effective space travel, BUT we are by no means anywhere near the point where we can justify the govt subsidizing such expenditures because the gains are VERY far away.
Yes, space gave us Tang and Velcro but putting Shuttles into orbit and people on the Moon have not cured _any_ diseases. I would *love* to see Americans on the Moon again and I'd even be willing to help front the bill, BUT the Country does not consider this important.
Here is a graph of CO2 ppmv and the correlating lower atomospheric temperature for the last 2000 years as determined from glaciers.
Graph Here
As you can see, the Temperature is highly erratic, while CO2 concentrations have been nearly static until recently. We have yet to see a difinitive trend. Don't let the number of plotted points towards the present confuse your judgement.... we have yet to see "hot" days like there were less than 500 years ago.
Correction: The WARMING OF THE PLANET CURRENTLY BELIEVED BY GRANOLA EATING CRUNCHIES TO BE SOLELY CAUSED BY CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE may be the result of an increase in Flux from the Sun.
Regardless, I think you know what I was getting at.
Whats even more interesting is that there are fairly solid theories that solar flare activity is directly related to the mean global temperature. In other words, the green house effect may very well be *mostly* caused by the Sun, rather than CO2 in the atmosphere.