a blown breaker is easily fixed, and causes only a few mins of system downtime.
smoked PSU voltage regulation circuits take a little longer.
hollywood style:
you want to keep edward snowden from boarding his flight. you plug in on the complimentary power recepticle, 30 secs later, the airport terminal is down, and cannot process boarding passes. he canno board at another terminal, because the whole system on the user-end is down.
you are about to be apprehended. you use a netbook that lacks real permanent storage, but still need some form of NV datastore, so use use encrypted USB.
to prevent security failure, you plug both devices into the same USB root hub.
you eliminate all useful forensic data in a few seconds.
I had a very similar idea years and years ago, but for electrical outlets on sensitive power circuits.
wallwart sized device charges up many megavolts in a resonant coil, then discharges it back into the mains.
the breaker will blow from the backfed voltage, but all the expensive devices attached will be smoked.
given how often proper building wiring is real consideraton over cost (sarcasm), and how useful a major, system wide disruption of this nature can be for interntional terrorism/counter intelligence, I could truly see such a device existing and being used.
the device could be concealed as a phone charger in todays world. nobody would find it even the least bit suspicious for a random person to sit down and plug in like that these days.
No, as the article this thread about makes clear, facebook has a rulebook, and it unilaterally enforces it.
as a consequence, what you describe as a panopticon of human culture is not what is delivered. it has been sanitized and filtered by facebook for you before you even can subscribe to feed.
if you knew anything about me, you would know that the above does not describe me at all.
in fact, i am practically the poster child for asserting that ethics is subjective, and determined by environment and circumstance (as opposed to rigid, and nonnegotiable, like FBs zero tolerance stance is.)
as for the prior post i made, let me clarify.
the primary thesis behind communism (the ideal kind) is that society disitributes wealth and power. the ideals of the society as a whole (the community), are what shape policy.
in every attempt at creating a communist state, the naturally conflictory desires and objectives of the individuals in the community create deadlock. to function, the governance must have unity. this leads to two possible roads:
1) all culture must become generic, and uniformly implemented, such that society pulls in a unified direction, and this happens naturally.
2) a central power brokering force must be implemented to accomplish item 1 through force. (this is what has nearly always been implemented.)
the confusion comes from how useful behavioral unification is for any government type, besides just communism.
Facebook is not communist. it is fascist. it just uses socialism as a rationale for its authoritarian rule of its platform; it uses the useful idiots of the SJW movement to bully its membership into a monocultural norm, then asserts that it is just enforcing the monoculture's will with its terms of service.
that communism created the playbook for this out of necessity is a historical footnote.
that does not remove the reality that FB is using that playbook. Saying idiotic things, like "it is thier platform, they can manage it however they like!" is apologism.
today marks the one year anniversary of the behavioral unification directive. never before have we had such a complete uniformity of beliefs and ideals. we are one people, one will. our uniformity is more powerful than any weapon, any army...
in other words, he was preaching about the cultural hegemonies that GP was mentioning. while perhaps more fascist or socialist in its delivery, (the nature of the totlitarian regime is not elaborated on, but the wording of the speech sugggests socialism, while the heavy police presence suggests fascism) the subject matter of a centralized power structure preaching that nonconformity is a crime in and of itself, and is not only illegal, but immoral as well, because it undermines the society as a whole, with implications that the speaker himself is a koolaid drinking true believer is the real takeaway here.
except that a hyperlink is not a reproduction, per se.
it has more in common with a proper periodical literature citation. you know, the kind that can help you find a whole magazine stored on a library shelf?
the significant difference here, is that instead of having to go to a library, locate the periodicals shelf, and then locate the cited periodical all by yourself, you have a fancy software agent that asks another software agent inside the library to find it for you, and check you out a copy automatically.
unless you want to say a citation is the same as the work it references, (which is nonsense), a hyperlnk and a citation are functionally analogous, and the use of one should be protected accordingly.
Theoretically, the compromised libc syscalls can be used to fire off system requests as if legit admin user was used, which can be used to execute kernel mode software, such as loading a malicious kernel module.
If it can pretend to be the root account, it can do whatever it wants.
Also means different long term health effects than found in space.
Tri-mix will let you dive that deep, but is not meant for long term use. Substitution of the nitrogen with inert gasses like helium or argon are untested for long term use.
Unless this habitat is designed to not only NOT crush like a ball of aluminum foil, but to also have sealevel cabin pressures, the health implications are poignant.
What, is China planning on colonizing Europe or something?
A permanent sea habitat, and a space station, have vastly different engineering requirements.
For starters, a sea habitat has to withstand positive pressures, and ocean current flows. (At the depth specified, a strong storm swell will shake the habitat pretty good.)
Meanwhile a space habitat needs to be lightweight for launch cost reasons, needs to protect against radiation, and withstand negative pressures well. The sanitation and sleeping arrangements need to consider microgravity.
About the only things the two will have in common are airlocks, power generation, and air reprocessing.
Sealab 2020, China Edition looks like it is just another lame excuse for actions in the contested south china sea.
Late reply, but no, it means exactly what I think it means.
Any object with thermal excitation (warmer than absolute zero) that is composed of normal matter will emit infrared photons consistent with its temperature, in the form of blackbody radiation.
This device produces microwave photons using a magnetron. They bounce around inside a closed metal cavity. They do not escape (directly). However, this process heats up the cavity, which then does emit blackbody photons.
Again, the device does not emit the photons into space for propulsion. The only photons it emits are diffuse blackbody photons, as a consequence of it getting hot. If the device worked the way GP suggested, (emitting photons into space to leverage the relstivistic mass of the photons as a form of reaction mass), it would be more efficient to just point the magnatron out the back of the craft, rather than catch them inside a closed cavity, and force the energy to become diffuse blackbody radiation prior to emission.
The only one who did not understand that this is what was being stated is yourself.
Have they found a practical way to mass produce single walled carbon nanotubes of arbitrary diameter and length yet?
I ask, because that is sadly a requirement for mass manufacture of quality ICs built using carbon semiconductor.
If they can pull that off cheaply and reliably, that enables carbon to really hit home as an industrial material, and things would get interesting.
Hand assembling an IC out of cherry picked parts in a cleanroom is not the same as the above. Yes, it lets you see that such chips have immense potential, but without a viable path to mass manufacture, the unit costs will be astoundingly prohibitive. Only the USA's DoD would be able to afford them. I really can't get behind such a nasty barrier in tech as that. The NSA has scary enough toys as is. Having access to ICs that they can drive many times harder than silicon, while the rest of us are left to pound sand due to the price, is not something I want to see.
Especially since the costly part is getting it into space to begin with.
If they are willing to put it out in space, for just a few dollars more you can get an unimpeachably demonstrable YES or NO about the claim. Why not do so?
1) reported thrust is very small. So small that sources of experimental error will plague even immaculate setups on earth.
2) as prior poster mentioned, evaporating cavity materials forming and being vented currently can explain, at least hypothetically, the majority of the thrust, and experimental error bars can take the rest.
3) a test in space is likely to be a short mission with release and capture over a few meters of flight, if that. This is not sufficient to rule out outgassing.
4) the reaction mass requirements to send the device in a gravity assisted return mission are well known. (Thanks Apollo program!)
5) The difference in solar insolation at low earth orbit, and at lunar orbit are academic. A test device using solar power would not experience a significant change in power generation over that distance.
6) assuming the test device cannot generate more power than the solar array it is fitted with, and is composed of less mass than would be required to get to the moon and back at that level of energy production, then it can only succeed in that mission if the reaction less drive claims are true.
by putting it through a trial that it cannot be successful at without the claimed feature, we can then safely say it has that feature should it succeed.
Without hard elimination of other variables, which a small test will likely never satisfy satisfactorily, the drives claims cannot be rigorously tested.
I will go out on a limb and say he attributes it to a combination of confirmation bias and experimental error.
That is why I suggest the test I do-- the only way for the test engine to complete the mission, is if it actually wirks, and works as described. (The engine lacks sufficient mass to do it any other way, but can get *free energy from the sun to power reaction less drive, if it indeed does do so.)
That is why i said it needs to go on a little cruise.
Say. A lap up to and back from lunar orbit. A distance that is still both close enough to closely monitor the test article, and far enough that if it were using evaporated cavity materials as reaction mass, the entire test article would need to be consumed.
It is otherwise impossible to rule out what you suggest: it may well be happening, but that kind of issue would be insufficient to satisfy the reaction mass requirements of the proposed test. A successful completion wouldnt rule out vapor release, it wiuld just show it does not dominate the generated thrust. Until a result that can only happen if reactionless drive is produced, and in a big way like that, the argument that there is reaction mass, and that it dominates the recorded thrust will never die.
Slashdot Mirror
a blown breaker is easily fixed, and causes only a few mins of system downtime.
smoked PSU voltage regulation circuits take a little longer.
hollywood style:
you want to keep edward snowden from boarding his flight. you plug in on the complimentary power recepticle, 30 secs later, the airport terminal is down, and cannot process boarding passes. he canno board at another terminal, because the whole system on the user-end is down.
lets say you are an international terrorist.
you are about to be apprehended. you use a netbook that lacks real permanent storage, but still need some form of NV datastore, so use use encrypted USB.
to prevent security failure, you plug both devices into the same USB root hub.
you eliminate all useful forensic data in a few seconds.
I had a very similar idea years and years ago, but for electrical outlets on sensitive power circuits.
wallwart sized device charges up many megavolts in a resonant coil, then discharges it back into the mains.
the breaker will blow from the backfed voltage, but all the expensive devices attached will be smoked.
given how often proper building wiring is real consideraton over cost (sarcasm), and how useful a major, system wide disruption of this nature can be for interntional terrorism/counter intelligence, I could truly see such a device existing and being used.
the device could be concealed as a phone charger in todays world. nobody would find it even the least bit suspicious for a random person to sit down and plug in like that these days.
Ahhh.. I see.
Mine works better though. Simple deletion can be forensically recovered, because it just removes pointers in the block chain.
My way overwrites every sector with 0s. :) synchronously! No buffering!
No, as the article this thread about makes clear, facebook has a rulebook, and it unilaterally enforces it.
as a consequence, what you describe as a panopticon of human culture is not what is delivered. it has been sanitized and filtered by facebook for you before you even can subscribe to feed.
friendly fascist, but still fascist.
lol.
if you knew anything about me, you would know that the above does not describe me at all.
in fact, i am practically the poster child for asserting that ethics is subjective, and determined by environment and circumstance (as opposed to rigid, and nonnegotiable, like FBs zero tolerance stance is.)
as for the prior post i made, let me clarify.
the primary thesis behind communism (the ideal kind) is that society disitributes wealth and power. the ideals of the society as a whole (the community), are what shape policy.
in every attempt at creating a communist state, the naturally conflictory desires and objectives of the individuals in the community create deadlock. to function, the governance must have unity. this leads to two possible roads:
1) all culture must become generic, and uniformly implemented, such that society pulls in a unified direction, and this happens naturally.
2) a central power brokering force must be implemented to accomplish item 1 through force. (this is what has nearly always been implemented.)
the confusion comes from how useful behavioral unification is for any government type, besides just communism.
Facebook is not communist. it is fascist. it just uses socialism as a rationale for its authoritarian rule of its platform; it uses the useful idiots of the SJW movement to bully its membership into a monocultural norm, then asserts that it is just enforcing the monoculture's will with its terms of service.
that communism created the playbook for this out of necessity is a historical footnote.
that does not remove the reality that FB is using that playbook. Saying idiotic things, like "it is thier platform, they can manage it however they like!" is apologism.
from memory, it goes a little like this:
today marks the one year anniversary of the behavioral unification directive. never before have we had such a complete uniformity of beliefs and ideals. we are one people, one will. our uniformity is more powerful than any weapon, any army...
in other words, he was preaching about the cultural hegemonies that GP was mentioning. while perhaps more fascist or socialist in its delivery, (the nature of the totlitarian regime is not elaborated on, but the wording of the speech sugggests socialism, while the heavy police presence suggests fascism) the subject matter of a centralized power structure preaching that nonconformity is a crime in and of itself, and is not only illegal, but immoral as well, because it undermines the society as a whole, with implications that the speaker himself is a koolaid drinking true believer is the real takeaway here.
You know that iconic 1984 Mac commercial?
Watch it again, and pay attention to what big brother is saying.
Come back afterward, and we can discuss your apologetics.
That only gets rid of what is in /usr/bin.
Better is to tell them how to duplicate a DVD using
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=1024 -sync
except that a hyperlink is not a reproduction, per se.
it has more in common with a proper periodical literature citation. you know, the kind that can help you find a whole magazine stored on a library shelf?
the significant difference here, is that instead of having to go to a library, locate the periodicals shelf, and then locate the cited periodical all by yourself, you have a fancy software agent that asks another software agent inside the library to find it for you, and check you out a copy automatically.
unless you want to say a citation is the same as the work it references, (which is nonsense), a hyperlnk and a citation are functionally analogous, and the use of one should be protected accordingly.
Theoretically, the compromised libc syscalls can be used to fire off system requests as if legit admin user was used, which can be used to execute kernel mode software, such as loading a malicious kernel module.
If it can pretend to be the root account, it can do whatever it wants.
I misread it as 300M, (which if you ask me, is vastly more plausible than the 3000 they cite.)
Europa you stupid hunk of glass. God I wish I could turn this auto correcting bullshit off!
Also means different long term health effects than found in space.
Tri-mix will let you dive that deep, but is not meant for long term use. Substitution of the nitrogen with inert gasses like helium or argon are untested for long term use.
Unless this habitat is designed to not only NOT crush like a ball of aluminum foil, but to also have sealevel cabin pressures, the health implications are poignant.
What, is China planning on colonizing Europe or something?
Yes, because android doesn't have ENOUGH ads in it already!
A permanent sea habitat, and a space station, have vastly different engineering requirements.
For starters, a sea habitat has to withstand positive pressures, and ocean current flows. (At the depth specified, a strong storm swell will shake the habitat pretty good.)
Meanwhile a space habitat needs to be lightweight for launch cost reasons, needs to protect against radiation, and withstand negative pressures well. The sanitation and sleeping arrangements need to consider microgravity.
About the only things the two will have in common are airlocks, power generation, and air reprocessing.
Sealab 2020, China Edition looks like it is just another lame excuse for actions in the contested south china sea.
Late reply, but no, it means exactly what I think it means.
Any object with thermal excitation (warmer than absolute zero) that is composed of normal matter will emit infrared photons consistent with its temperature, in the form of blackbody radiation.
This device produces microwave photons using a magnetron. They bounce around inside a closed metal cavity. They do not escape (directly). However, this process heats up the cavity, which then does emit blackbody photons.
Again, the device does not emit the photons into space for propulsion. The only photons it emits are diffuse blackbody photons, as a consequence of it getting hot. If the device worked the way GP suggested, (emitting photons into space to leverage the relstivistic mass of the photons as a form of reaction mass), it would be more efficient to just point the magnatron out the back of the craft, rather than catch them inside a closed cavity, and force the energy to become diffuse blackbody radiation prior to emission.
The only one who did not understand that this is what was being stated is yourself.
Have they found a practical way to mass produce single walled carbon nanotubes of arbitrary diameter and length yet?
I ask, because that is sadly a requirement for mass manufacture of quality ICs built using carbon semiconductor.
If they can pull that off cheaply and reliably, that enables carbon to really hit home as an industrial material, and things would get interesting.
Hand assembling an IC out of cherry picked parts in a cleanroom is not the same as the above. Yes, it lets you see that such chips have immense potential, but without a viable path to mass manufacture, the unit costs will be astoundingly prohibitive. Only the USA's DoD would be able to afford them. I really can't get behind such a nasty barrier in tech as that. The NSA has scary enough toys as is. Having access to ICs that they can drive many times harder than silicon, while the rest of us are left to pound sand due to the price, is not something I want to see.
Fetta samsung! Fetta!
Why do you change perfectly good words as soon as I press the spacebar!?
For fucks sake!
While Italy does make some fine cheeses, I don't think I would like sticking a cheesy Italian like Guido Getty in my mouth. ;)
Especially since the costly part is getting it into space to begin with.
If they are willing to put it out in space, for just a few dollars more you can get an unimpeachably demonstrable YES or NO about the claim. Why not do so?
The issues are:
1) reported thrust is very small. So small that sources of experimental error will plague even immaculate setups on earth.
2) as prior poster mentioned, evaporating cavity materials forming and being vented currently can explain, at least hypothetically, the majority of the thrust, and experimental error bars can take the rest.
3) a test in space is likely to be a short mission with release and capture over a few meters of flight, if that. This is not sufficient to rule out outgassing.
4) the reaction mass requirements to send the device in a gravity assisted return mission are well known. (Thanks Apollo program!)
5) The difference in solar insolation at low earth orbit, and at lunar orbit are academic. A test device using solar power would not experience a significant change in power generation over that distance.
6) assuming the test device cannot generate more power than the solar array it is fitted with, and is composed of less mass than would be required to get to the moon and back at that level of energy production, then it can only succeed in that mission if the reaction less drive claims are true.
by putting it through a trial that it cannot be successful at without the claimed feature, we can then safely say it has that feature should it succeed.
Without hard elimination of other variables, which a small test will likely never satisfy satisfactorily, the drives claims cannot be rigorously tested.
Moon flyby will nail it big if it worked.
Papers?
I will go out on a limb and say he attributes it to a combination of confirmation bias and experimental error.
That is why I suggest the test I do-- the only way for the test engine to complete the mission, is if it actually wirks, and works as described. (The engine lacks sufficient mass to do it any other way, but can get *free energy from the sun to power reaction less drive, if it indeed does do so.)
That is why i said it needs to go on a little cruise.
Say. A lap up to and back from lunar orbit. A distance that is still both close enough to closely monitor the test article, and far enough that if it were using evaporated cavity materials as reaction mass, the entire test article would need to be consumed.
It is otherwise impossible to rule out what you suggest: it may well be happening, but that kind of issue would be insufficient to satisfy the reaction mass requirements of the proposed test. A successful completion wouldnt rule out vapor release, it wiuld just show it does not dominate the generated thrust. Until a result that can only happen if reactionless drive is produced, and in a big way like that, the argument that there is reaction mass, and that it dominates the recorded thrust will never die.