Biological systems have many broken legacy "routines" that don't get called, or get called, and execute incorrectly. How do these engineers intend to deal with exception handling in this capacity?
For instance, a well known mutation known as bombay phenotype involved a precursor protein called "H protein", which then gets modified by additional cellular processes to become either A or B blood antigen. The mutation makes a defective H protein, and thus prevents the proper activation of the A or B antigen "routine".
If they try to build a programing language for cellular processes involving DNA and protein synthesis, then how will they handle exception cases, such as that one? It can be likened to the halting problem, because the question asked is "given these inputs and this program, will the program ever halt?"
Look, it just felt that if it was going to be forced into being famous by those damned paparazzi scientists at the LHC, when it had spent the entire previous history of the universe toiling in obscurity providing substance to all the masses, that it at least deserved to be compensated for the hassle.
And you people act like it did a bad thing! Shame on you!
You are injecting an artificial difference that does not logically exist, between a "for profit school", and a "private school."
Private schools are for profit schools that are selective in which students they will accept.
For profit schools are for profit schools that are selective in which students they will accept.
Sounds to me like you are barking up the wrong tree. The issue isn't that the schools are driven with a profit motive, the issue is that you take exception to the school's ability to refuse admission.
This is a perfectly justified concern, because when no public schools (that have to accept anyone and everyone from a given district) exist anymore, then logically, there will be a resulting demographic of children who are systematically excluded from the "for profit only" school landscapes.
On the other hand, this is also an unsatisfied demand in the market. That means creating a school that specializes in these "undesirable" pupils would have an assured revinue stream.
At that point, the complaint changes; all the kids are going to school, but at least one demographic has few if any options, and the one school that specializes in the undesirable kids is essentially a monopoly, and can charge an absurd price, and get away with it.
True libertarians don't want to acknowledge this last situation, because it clearly paints a portrait of where government regulation is necessary. This is because government regulation of just about anything is considered offensive to diehard libertarians.
I don't mind the death of public school systems, and the rise of privatized ones in their place, as long as there is regulation forbidding outright castigation of groups of pupils based on any set of criteria. Eg, the schools have to admit any and all students, and the cost burden between a special needs student and a normal tuition paid student has a government assistance program that the school can make use of, paid for by tax money, but with riggorous oversight to punish and discourage abuse.
A single process can contain multiple threads. Without some level of protection there, this kind of thing could be more vulnerable to code injection attacks, allowing a perp to own the whole VM. If they do this without upsetting the process in any visible way, they can now just soak up all the data that the VM is having shoveled through it.
Without a kernel space inside the VM looking for untoward behavior from the threads in userspace, and enforcing restrictions on who owns what resources, this is a recipe for trouble. The compromised thread can walk all over the vm's memory, and report whatever it wants to the hypervisor. In this case, the goal isn't to escallate, the goal is to compromise the vm and lay dormant. An actual, real VM with a seperate kernel space keeps important parts of memory secure. Like the data reporting and monitoring threads.
They just removed a whole layer of security. It may well be mostly redundant, but given the stakes involved, redundant security features can actually pay off.
The honor system doesn't work when the threads stop being honorable.
Did they really just say that they removed the insolation between kernel and user spaces?
(Re-reads. Yup. That's what they said!)
Oh dear gawds. Do they not realize that this makes their processes naked little unprotected things in a dimly lit room, that are going to be savagely raped and abused by the first rogue process that comes along?
Do they have no conception of why the two spaces are kept apart!?
No thank you, I will refuse to conduct business with any agency that uses this platform, thanks. We have a big enough problem with identity theft and wire fraud as is. I don't want to encourage such a horrifically stupid idea by giving some dumbass led company my business.
It really isn't that difficult; just imagine cornstarch and water. Ok, now imagine that as money, aka, liquid assets.
This non-neutonian liquid asset appears firm and to have substance as long as it is traded quickly, or placed under high trade pressures, but for anyone attempting to hold onto it, it melts into a sticky mess, and they are left with little to show for it.
There is a considerable degree of interest and research into such non-neutonian liquidities, as everyone seems hell bent on finding ways to make ever more of the stuff. This means that the rate of exchange and the overall economic force behind the trading have to continue to rise to accommodate the inclusion.
We non-neutonian econophysicists deal almost exclusively with these kinds of liquidities, and often work very closely with non-euclidian geometric market analysists to see new angles to the market that others failed to see or exploit before.
It's really quite technical deep down, so don't feel bad if you can't quite comprehend it all.
It's probably wrong, as it is the product of ignorance. As such nothing that follows should be seen as factual. It is supposition. And again, probably very wrong.
Still, What if the physical volume of spacetime is far larger than it currently appears, the force driving spacetime expansion is the energy that creates vacuum fluctuations entering the true ground state (as more spacetime that has fewer fluctuations), and the currently observed universe's rate of expansion is an illusion?
Imagine:
Shortly after the bang, we have a very excited vacuum, and a volume for the universe that is very constrained. Mass-like fluctuations in the vacuum will occur frequently, even though actual massed particles don't exist yet. Over the volume constrained universe, this creates knots in the energy density of the early universe, by making spacetime "lumpy".
If we presume that the rate of spacetime expansion of this early universe is "just slightly" greater than this gravity like influence from the combined action of the fluctuations that have mass like terms, then spacetime will explode away from the soup, faster than the soup expands. If we say gravitational effects propogate over spacetime at exactly c, then this expansion would be a tiny fractional bit in excess.
the aggregation of this soup toward its barycenter would be arrested by this expansion. The acceleration of the soup toward its baycenter would make the apparent rate of expansion seem very tiny. (Say we are accelerating at 1 plank unit every plank second, toward the net barycenter. We are in spacetime that is inflating at a net rate of 1.000000000.....1 plank units every plank second. The members of our cloud will appear to be moving *away* from the barycenter at the.0000000....1 plank units per plank second, despite actually accellerating toward it.) The actual expansion of spacetime will be considerably greater than the apparent one.
Gravitational attraction falls off on the inverse cube of distance. As the cloud expands (or rather, is pulled apart by expanding spacetime), the rate of accelleration by gravity toward the barycenter diminishes, making the apparent expansion rate increase.
Now, the really odd thought.
If we presume that the driving force behind the expansion is the decay of vacuum energy to its lowest possible state (spacetime with no fluctuations), then rate of expansion will not remain constant, and will slowly degrade over time as it runs out of energy.
This suggests a number of things. First, that the energy density of spacetime (as a whole) is falling off at a greater than geometrical rate in proportion to its volume. Second, that the rate of expansion is actually slowing, as the energy behind the expansion is depleted. And thirdly, all massive objects in the universe are currently travelling with a very large extant of momentum toward the original cloud's barycenter (with some local difflection of vector from uneaven distributions, and interactions with nearby massed objects with local barycenters) that is already a significant fraction of c.
This would seem to explain a good deal.
1) where did all the missing energy go? It's basically empty and flat spacetime surrounding the visible universe like a bubble. It is far bigger than the visible universe.
2) the odd shifts in rates of expansion of the universe over time, when run backwards with regard to star lifecycles, and isotopic concentrations of clouds and star clusters. The universe appears to expand very predictably, slows down for a long time, then suddenly picks up again with great force. The reason suggested: expansion is at first very pernicious, but attractive forces nearly cancel it out, making for slow apparent expansion. The rate of decay in that expansion is not sufficient for attractive forces to overcome. The distances between major massed objects continues to increas, and the rate of accelleration between them diminishes, but slower than the falloff in actual r
The model is based on observed tissue degeneration, as per the abstract, as well as wide statistical samplings of observable age related mental decline in the human population.
To quote the abstract directly:
"This development-to-degeneration model is testable through imaging and post mortem methods and highlights the vital role of myelin in impulse transmission and synchronous brain function. The model offers a framework that explains the anatomical distribution and progressive course of AD pathology, some of the failures of promising therapeutic interventions, and suggests further testable hypotheses as well as novel approaches for intervention efforts."
In not so many words, it's predictions are congruent with the results of several recent studies in the invervention of age related mental decline, as well with the post mortem and fMRI imaging data collected to date.
While I also doubt that the researcher would go so far as to say it is 100% "God's own truth", it is a theory that appears to correctly predict the observed behavior. You are making the mistake that just because it says the word "Theory", it is equally good to crackpottery.
You are welcome to such a belief, but I hold a different one.
The second law of thermodynamics is just that-- a law. Current observations predict that the universe will die from entropy stemming from unrestrained expansion, and that eventually all protons in the universe will decay.
This means that immortality is fundementally inachievable. The best you can do is fight to stave it off. Much like the carnot equasion showing the maximum possible efficiency for a heat engine, the laws of thermodynamics state the maximum theoretically possible degree of resistance against entropy in the universe you hace put up. If you are truely serious about the effort, you will consume 100% of the non-entropic portion of the energy of the universe to satisfy the attempt. Eternity is a VERY long time.,
Long before then, you will have set about on a genocidal campaign to secure energy sources to sustain your existence at the deficit of other intelligent life. The universe is a big place. We statistically are not alone. Even if we are, another immortal being's existence will radically reduce your own ability to resist the entropic decay of the universe. Eventually, you will fight each other to have the resources and energy the other represents.
The ultimate conclusion of attempting to attain immortality is complete sociopathy.
If you instead say that you only want to extend your life some degree, you still ultimately must accept the inevitability of death. If you are going to do that, why not accept the lifespan you are allready afforded?
Actually, I avoid getting care for most of my health issues, to avoid this very form of hypocrasy. The soft tissue tumors are benign, and simply cause cosmetic issues, other than being in irritating places that can restrict movement. There is no real reason to remove them.
The blood sugar regulation issue is still in the pre-diabetic stages, and is treatable with diet and exercise.
The heart condition is likewise manageable. I have health issues, but am not miserable. They restrict me, but they dont define me.
I dont seek medical interventions to extend my lifespan, and should one of my lipomas suddenly turn into crazy wild deep tissue cancer, and I go undiagnosed and die from metastatic illness, I wont be upset about it.
I have no interest in ending my life, but I dont actively seek to artificially prolong it either. I will die when I die, and I like not knowing when that will be. It causes me to live each day to its fullest, and not take life for granted. Being promised perfect, unfaultering health and purpetual youth would spoil that. I would turn it down.
Using the existing data from these kinds of studies, you can derive a maximum theoretical upper bound on the complexity to longevity coefficient.
The prognosis is not good. You can probably boost the numbers somewhat by introducing genetic modifications to improve cellular health of these vital support cells, and to improve the number of divisions from progenitor cells they can be reasonably derived from, but that intoduces yet more complex problems.
The human brain is simply not constructed in a fashion that is infinitely durable. Even if you solve the hygiene issues with the ogliodendrocytes, you will still run into issues with axonal branching reaching critical capacity, and the individual neurons being unable to cope with new information.
So, either you fix this by making people suffer dementia, and forget things in order to avoid this "post death" era overload, or you end up with vegetables who have siezures. Again, if you go through the trouble of solving the dendrocyte problem.
This is a problem that cannot be solved, while retaining physical humanity.
Sure, you could possibly find a way to liberate a brain from its bony prison, and gently loosen the neural fibers in a nutrient bath, to allow nueronal and axonal migration to continue, but then the patient isn't really human anymore, are they? Congratulations, your immortal person is a giant, energy hungry brain in a tank.
Even then, there are mechanical stress limits from the raw weight related mass of the liberated organ to contend with. Eventually, being displaced in a fluid won't be enough, and the young modulous of the axons inside the bloated mass of tissue will be exceeded, just from the collections own rest weight, resulting in systemic brain damage. You'll have to go into orbit.
And then, you run out of resources, because neural tissue is absurdly energy hungry, (your existing brain consumes a full third of all calories consumed!) And space doesn't exactly have raw material in infinite abundance.
This argument (^) is a strawman created by an idiot.
I have many genetically heritable issues, and I strongly advicate normal, natural death. I am not a 20 something, and I do have health issues.
Death is required. Making death clean and without suffering would be humane and beneficial, but killing death itself is foolish in its most extreme.
Creating strawmen to shove in other people's mouths because you don't like what they are actually saying is delusional and stupid.
(For the record, since I am sure you will ask, despite having no business asking, I have a congenital heart defect, genetically linked soft tissue tumors, blood sugar regulation trouble associated with early type 1 diabetes risk factors, and several other noteworthy things. I consider death essential, and I am glad it exists. Take your strawman and shove it up your ass.)
Given it is a one trick pony (give or take), something like a broadcom SoC with 500mb of on-die RAM, 2 processor cores, an SDCard slot able to have mount points with the root filesystem (for update capabilities), and 1 to 2gb of SRAM on a busmastered connection serviced with GPIO lines for compressed swap space would do it nicely.
You could probably make a consumer product out of it for a retail target of around 100 to 130$.
Because it is a SoC, the hardware is fixed. This makes configuration a non-issue, if the core image is properly configured.
that's still supporting the abusive people, through the ad revinue, without supporting any alternative distributors.
I was, however, referring to services like Hulu Plus, Blockbuster streaming service, and pals. EG, the streaming services operated by the content creators, explicitly to kill netflix, and other non-vested and disruptive distributors.
Once all the contenders are gone, the rates will go back up. There is no reason for them not to.
What else will happen, is that this behavior can't be sustained by the government, without being highly suspicious.
This is ensured, because not all "terrorists" (ahem) will be conveniently sitting alone in their houses, waiting to have their brains blown out by the keystone cops. Some of them will be in very public places at all times, and videos and other recordings of the police misconduct will escape the media blockade. The fiction simply won't be able to endure, if the rate of "actions" taken is high. Eventually, they will have to arrest someone properly, and peacefully, and the extremeness in the two events will only condemn the government for its immorality.
1) Syntax, grammar, and spelling are intended to assist communication. Nothing more. "Readability" is a metric of the effectiveness of the communication.
2) Misuse of those rules to provide a service they are not, and have never been intended for (conveying how "smart", or how "valuable" the communication itself is) is not rational.
3) Drawing attention to incorrect use, as an excuse to ignore communication you find disfavorable, is pure hypocrisy. The reason it is hypocrisy, is because the premise itself relies on misuse of those rules; specifically, the attempt to use them as a metric of worthiness to communicate. Those rules are not and have never been intended for that function. Calling out misuse for the purpose of misuse is nonsensical.
4) As stated in the addendum post, I use a smartphone with a crappy IME. When coupled with the notoriously bad "slashdot mobile" experience, entire words are simply omitted during text entry, *despite being keyed*, and further, any attempts at proofreading and correction are rendered extraordinarily difficult to accomplish. Under these circumstances, "perfect communication" is not possible, without hurculean effort.
Taken all together, your insistence and arrogance on the demand clearly demonstrates several outstanding features.
1) You are unwilling to finish reading something that does not meet your onerous preconceptions of value.
2) You hypocritically misuse language rules while condemning others for a related infraction.
3) You have clearly demonstrated your own lack of tolerance in intellectual matters, giving a REAL metric of your own intellectual capacities.
4) You have clearly demonstrated that you are unable to approach the situation without subjective biases, and that you will cling to strawmen rather than actually "degrade yourself" to actually finish reading what was written.
5) You resort to adhominems and other illogical tactics when called on the above.
From this, I can only conclude that you are not nearly as intelligent and well educated as you believe yourself to be, and live in a carefully constructed fantasy setting in which you and you alone are worthy of communication, and that *any* deviation from the currently established norms for the language used, is clear evidence to support this self-narrative.
In light of that:
Which is correct: Jail, or Gaol.
After you experience that sudden burst of anger and incredulity, I challenge you to look it up.
You will find that the latter is archaic, but correct. How then did it become "jail" instead?
The simple answer, is that your preconception about "propriety" of language, and of its syntax, and use all having an ultimately and unquestionably "correct" form, simply is not conserved. It is a fantasy. One you cling desperately to, and that desperation with which you cling to it, speaks volumes about how uneducated and unintelligent you actually are.
Previously, Netflix had a much wider streaming selection, but they had a falling out with several content creators. (Who promptly created/bought their own, rival, streaming services.)
This caused netflix to lose their ability to stream that content to customers.
Complaining that "netflix is shit", and then running to the same abusive people who are responsible for cable being over priced to begin with, because they have all the content you want, really doesn't accomplish much.
Rather, you should complain that the content producers refuse to license to netflix, and other streaming services in a nondescriminiatory fashion.
I can confirm this. I saw NAKED LiON cells (1000mah) for sale... At walmart.
Walmart. Blister pack packaging. No charge logic. Not LiPo. LiON. Naked tube cells
Needless to say, I was flabbergasted. Naked lion cells are quite dangerous. If they get shorted, they turn into little bombs. Even worse, they were in the clearance aisle. Who knows what state the chemistry was in.
The idea is to alter the resonant properties of the sending antenna. By directly coupling with sending antenna using the near feild, we can make the signal fidelity of the broadcast signal drop to abysmally low levels.
For a realworld example, look at what happens when a small cellphone booster used for cars gets parked underneath a big cellphone tower. The broadcast power of the repeater is considerably less than the tower, but also considerably greater than a normal cellphone. The tower has to turn the reception gain way down to avoid saturation, and when it does, the actual devices it is listening for are lost in the noise floor. This makes the tower useless. This is one of the reasons why the FCC has issued strong rules about signal boosters for cellular communications.
In this case, we are basically acting like a mosquito in the device's ear. Makes hardly any noise at all, actually, but because it is so close, it drowns everthing else out. Additionally, it also acts like a kazoo, distorting all the sent signals from the antenna through direct coupled resonance, and the slight impedance of the jammer's antenna coil and capacitor putting it slightly out of phase with the sending antenna. The big antenna would be talking with marbles in its mouth.
The fact that it also is directly on top of an antenna that is supposed to be broadcasting makes detecting it nearly impossible, even if/when the signalling antenna turns its broadcast power way up to try to compensate for what it percieves as a high noise floor. (Making the signal emitted by the nearfield device greater, from the stronger resonance) The detection equipment operator will likely ignore the signal, believing it to be coming from a known source of RF energy. He would have to be looking at the raw RF histogram to notice that the signal it was emitting was highly distorted.
Making the stickers cammoflauged to avoid being easily spotted (same color as the black plastic housing of a stick antenna, with a similar matte finish, for instance) would make detecting the device even harder. Just make sure you dont leave finger prints when you affix it, unless you want the feds to pay you a visit.
You cearly do not understand what civil disobedience actually requires. There is zero resistance to arrest, and it is obvious to all that this is the case. This prevents the authorities from claiming that there was, without also losing their moral and ethical grounds for enforcement.
So, you go around sabotaging cameras, microphones, and monitoring equipment, and when the police arrest you, you comply 100% with the arrest, and make no attempts whatsoever to evade the legal consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
Biological systems have many broken legacy "routines" that don't get called, or get called, and execute incorrectly. How do these engineers intend to deal with exception handling in this capacity?
For instance, a well known mutation known as bombay phenotype involved a precursor protein called "H protein", which then gets modified by additional cellular processes to become either A or B blood antigen. The mutation makes a defective H protein, and thus prevents the proper activation of the A or B antigen "routine".
If they try to build a programing language for cellular processes involving DNA and protein synthesis, then how will they handle exception cases, such as that one? It can be likened to the halting problem, because the question asked is "given these inputs and this program, will the program ever halt?"
How do they intend to resolve this problem?
Look, it just felt that if it was going to be forced into being famous by those damned paparazzi scientists at the LHC, when it had spent the entire previous history of the universe toiling in obscurity providing substance to all the masses, that it at least deserved to be compensated for the hassle.
And you people act like it did a bad thing! Shame on you!
You are injecting an artificial difference that does not logically exist, between a "for profit school", and a "private school."
Private schools are for profit schools that are selective in which students they will accept.
For profit schools are for profit schools that are selective in which students they will accept.
Sounds to me like you are barking up the wrong tree. The issue isn't that the schools are driven with a profit motive, the issue is that you take exception to the school's ability to refuse admission.
This is a perfectly justified concern, because when no public schools (that have to accept anyone and everyone from a given district) exist anymore, then logically, there will be a resulting demographic of children who are systematically excluded from the "for profit only" school landscapes.
On the other hand, this is also an unsatisfied demand in the market. That means creating a school that specializes in these "undesirable" pupils would have an assured revinue stream.
At that point, the complaint changes; all the kids are going to school, but at least one demographic has few if any options, and the one school that specializes in the undesirable kids is essentially a monopoly, and can charge an absurd price, and get away with it.
True libertarians don't want to acknowledge this last situation, because it clearly paints a portrait of where government regulation is necessary. This is because government regulation of just about anything is considered offensive to diehard libertarians.
I don't mind the death of public school systems, and the rise of privatized ones in their place, as long as there is regulation forbidding outright castigation of groups of pupils based on any set of criteria. Eg, the schools have to admit any and all students, and the cost burden between a special needs student and a normal tuition paid student has a government assistance program that the school can make use of, paid for by tax money, but with riggorous oversight to punish and discourage abuse.
But there I go being a moderate centrist again.
A single process can contain multiple threads. Without some level of protection there, this kind of thing could be more vulnerable to code injection attacks, allowing a perp to own the whole VM. If they do this without upsetting the process in any visible way, they can now just soak up all the data that the VM is having shoveled through it.
Without a kernel space inside the VM looking for untoward behavior from the threads in userspace, and enforcing restrictions on who owns what resources, this is a recipe for trouble. The compromised thread can walk all over the vm's memory, and report whatever it wants to the hypervisor. In this case, the goal isn't to escallate, the goal is to compromise the vm and lay dormant. An actual, real VM with a seperate kernel space keeps important parts of memory secure. Like the data reporting and monitoring threads.
They just removed a whole layer of security. It may well be mostly redundant, but given the stakes involved, redundant security features can actually pay off.
The honor system doesn't work when the threads stop being honorable.
Did they really just say that they removed the insolation between kernel and user spaces?
(Re-reads. Yup. That's what they said!)
Oh dear gawds. Do they not realize that this makes their processes naked little unprotected things in a dimly lit room, that are going to be savagely raped and abused by the first rogue process that comes along?
Do they have no conception of why the two spaces are kept apart!?
No thank you, I will refuse to conduct business with any agency that uses this platform, thanks. We have a big enough problem with identity theft and wire fraud as is. I don't want to encourage such a horrifically stupid idea by giving some dumbass led company my business.
Nono.
It's the non-neutonian version of fluid capital.
It really isn't that difficult; just imagine cornstarch and water.
Ok, now imagine that as money, aka, liquid assets.
This non-neutonian liquid asset appears firm and to have substance as long as it is traded quickly, or placed under high trade pressures, but for anyone attempting to hold onto it, it melts into a sticky mess, and they are left with little to show for it.
There is a considerable degree of interest and research into such non-neutonian liquidities, as everyone seems hell bent on finding ways to make ever more of the stuff. This means that the rate of exchange and the overall economic force behind the trading have to continue to rise to accommodate the inclusion.
We non-neutonian econophysicists deal almost exclusively with these kinds of liquidities, and often work very closely with non-euclidian geometric market analysists to see new angles to the market that others failed to see or exploit before.
It's really quite technical deep down, so don't feel bad if you can't quite comprehend it all.
I just had a radical thought.
It's probably wrong, as it is the product of ignorance. As such nothing that follows should be seen as factual. It is supposition. And again, probably very wrong.
Still, What if the physical volume of spacetime is far larger than it currently appears, the force driving spacetime expansion is the energy that creates vacuum fluctuations entering the true ground state (as more spacetime that has fewer fluctuations), and the currently observed universe's rate of expansion is an illusion?
Imagine:
Shortly after the bang, we have a very excited vacuum, and a volume for the universe that is very constrained. Mass-like fluctuations in the vacuum will occur frequently, even though actual massed particles don't exist yet. Over the volume constrained universe, this creates knots in the energy density of the early universe, by making spacetime "lumpy".
If we presume that the rate of spacetime expansion of this early universe is "just slightly" greater than this gravity like influence from the combined action of the fluctuations that have mass like terms, then spacetime will explode away from the soup, faster than the soup expands. If we say gravitational effects propogate over spacetime at exactly c, then this expansion would be a tiny fractional bit in excess.
the aggregation of this soup toward its barycenter would be arrested by this expansion. The acceleration of the soup toward its baycenter would make the apparent rate of expansion seem very tiny. (Say we are accelerating at 1 plank unit every plank second, toward the net barycenter. We are in spacetime that is inflating at a net rate of 1.000000000.....1 plank units every plank second. The members of our cloud will appear to be moving *away* from the barycenter at the .0000000....1 plank units per plank second, despite actually accellerating toward it.) The actual expansion of spacetime will be considerably greater than the apparent one.
Gravitational attraction falls off on the inverse cube of distance. As the cloud expands (or rather, is pulled apart by expanding spacetime), the rate of accelleration by gravity toward the barycenter diminishes, making the apparent expansion rate increase.
Now, the really odd thought.
If we presume that the driving force behind the expansion is the decay of vacuum energy to its lowest possible state (spacetime with no fluctuations), then rate of expansion will not remain constant, and will slowly degrade over time as it runs out of energy.
This suggests a number of things. First, that the energy density of spacetime (as a whole) is falling off at a greater than geometrical rate in proportion to its volume. Second, that the rate of expansion is actually slowing, as the energy behind the expansion is depleted. And thirdly, all massive objects in the universe are currently travelling with a very large extant of momentum toward the original cloud's barycenter (with some local difflection of vector from uneaven distributions, and interactions with nearby massed objects with local barycenters) that is already a significant fraction of c.
This would seem to explain a good deal.
1) where did all the missing energy go? It's basically empty and flat spacetime surrounding the visible universe like a bubble. It is far bigger than the visible universe.
2) the odd shifts in rates of expansion of the universe over time, when run backwards with regard to star lifecycles, and isotopic concentrations of clouds and star clusters. The universe appears to expand very predictably, slows down for a long time, then suddenly picks up again with great force. The reason suggested: expansion is at first very pernicious, but attractive forces nearly cancel it out, making for slow apparent expansion. The rate of decay in that expansion is not sufficient for attractive forces to overcome. The distances between major massed objects continues to increas, and the rate of accelleration between them diminishes, but slower than the falloff in actual r
So, don't misrepresent yourself then. Just misrepresent what you own.
"I am wierd_w and I am the legal owner of all the posts on this slashdot comments page."
I don't mis-state who I am, just what I actually own. (You would have to be an idiot to believe I owned all the posts on this page!)
Thus, "not perjury". ;)
The model is based on observed tissue degeneration, as per the abstract, as well as wide statistical samplings of observable age related mental decline in the human population.
To quote the abstract directly:
"This development-to-degeneration model is testable through imaging and post mortem methods and highlights the vital role of myelin in impulse transmission and synchronous brain function. The model offers a framework that explains the anatomical distribution and progressive course of AD pathology, some of the failures of promising therapeutic interventions, and suggests further testable hypotheses as well as novel approaches for intervention efforts."
In not so many words, it's predictions are congruent with the results of several recent studies in the invervention of age related mental decline, as well with the post mortem and fMRI imaging data collected to date.
While I also doubt that the researcher would go so far as to say it is 100% "God's own truth", it is a theory that appears to correctly predict the observed behavior. You are making the mistake that just because it says the word "Theory", it is equally good to crackpottery.
You are welcome to such a belief, but I hold a different one.
The second law of thermodynamics is just that-- a law. Current observations predict that the universe will die from entropy stemming from unrestrained expansion, and that eventually all protons in the universe will decay.
This means that immortality is fundementally inachievable. The best you can do is fight to stave it off. Much like the carnot equasion showing the maximum possible efficiency for a heat engine, the laws of thermodynamics state the maximum theoretically possible degree of resistance against entropy in the universe you hace put up. If you are truely serious about the effort, you will consume 100% of the non-entropic portion of the energy of the universe to satisfy the attempt. Eternity is a VERY long time.,
Long before then, you will have set about on a genocidal campaign to secure energy sources to sustain your existence at the deficit of other intelligent life. The universe is a big place. We statistically are not alone. Even if we are, another immortal being's existence will radically reduce your own ability to resist the entropic decay of the universe. Eventually, you will fight each other to have the resources and energy the other represents.
The ultimate conclusion of attempting to attain immortality is complete sociopathy.
If you instead say that you only want to extend your life some degree, you still ultimately must accept the inevitability of death. If you are going to do that, why not accept the lifespan you are allready afforded?
Voila-- We have reached my position.
Actually, I avoid getting care for most of my health issues, to avoid this very form of hypocrasy. The soft tissue tumors are benign, and simply cause cosmetic issues, other than being in irritating places that can restrict movement. There is no real reason to remove them.
The blood sugar regulation issue is still in the pre-diabetic stages, and is treatable with diet and exercise.
The heart condition is likewise manageable. I have health issues, but am not miserable. They restrict me, but they dont define me.
I dont seek medical interventions to extend my lifespan, and should one of my lipomas suddenly turn into crazy wild deep tissue cancer, and I go undiagnosed and die from metastatic illness, I wont be upset about it.
I have no interest in ending my life, but I dont actively seek to artificially prolong it either. I will die when I die, and I like not knowing when that will be. It causes me to live each day to its fullest, and not take life for granted. Being promised perfect, unfaultering health and purpetual youth would spoil that. I would turn it down.
More, I have reached acceptance of my condition. I am not angry or resentful about it.
If anything, it makes me more appreciative of the life I currently enjoy. I dont fixate on the bad. The bad just helps you to better savor the good.
You are making an equally dangerous one.
Age related mental decline has been directly associated with increased stresses on ogliodendrocites, which comes about as the number of axonal connections needing care increase.
Using the existing data from these kinds of studies, you can derive a maximum theoretical upper bound on the complexity to longevity coefficient.
The prognosis is not good. You can probably boost the numbers somewhat by introducing genetic modifications to improve cellular health of these vital support cells, and to improve the number of divisions from progenitor cells they can be reasonably derived from, but that intoduces yet more complex problems.
The human brain is simply not constructed in a fashion that is infinitely durable. Even if you solve the hygiene issues with the ogliodendrocytes, you will still run into issues with axonal branching reaching critical capacity, and the individual neurons being unable to cope with new information.
So, either you fix this by making people suffer dementia, and forget things in order to avoid this "post death" era overload, or you end up with vegetables who have siezures. Again, if you go through the trouble of solving the dendrocyte problem.
This is a problem that cannot be solved, while retaining physical humanity.
Sure, you could possibly find a way to liberate a brain from its bony prison, and gently loosen the neural fibers in a nutrient bath, to allow nueronal and axonal migration to continue, but then the patient isn't really human anymore, are they? Congratulations, your immortal person is a giant, energy hungry brain in a tank.
Even then, there are mechanical stress limits from the raw weight related mass of the liberated organ to contend with. Eventually, being displaced in a fluid won't be enough, and the young modulous of the axons inside the bloated mass of tissue will be exceeded, just from the collections own rest weight, resulting in systemic brain damage. You'll have to go into orbit.
And then, you run out of resources, because neural tissue is absurdly energy hungry, (your existing brain consumes a full third of all calories consumed!) And space doesn't exactly have raw material in infinite abundance.
Immortality simply can't work.
This argument (^) is a strawman created by an idiot.
I have many genetically heritable issues, and I strongly advicate normal, natural death. I am not a 20 something, and I do have health issues.
Death is required. Making death clean and without suffering would be humane and beneficial, but killing death itself is foolish in its most extreme.
Creating strawmen to shove in other people's mouths because you don't like what they are actually saying is delusional and stupid.
(For the record, since I am sure you will ask, despite having no business asking, I have a congenital heart defect, genetically linked soft tissue tumors, blood sugar regulation trouble associated with early type 1 diabetes risk factors, and several other noteworthy things. I consider death essential, and I am glad it exists. Take your strawman and shove it up your ass.)
Why am I suddenly reminded of the book chute?
(Hint: this is basically a BeagleBone, with some SRAM wired to the 40(!) GPIO pins it offers.)
Given it is a one trick pony (give or take), something like a broadcom SoC with 500mb of on-die RAM, 2 processor cores, an SDCard slot able to have mount points with the root filesystem (for update capabilities), and 1 to 2gb of SRAM on a busmastered connection serviced with GPIO lines for compressed swap space would do it nicely.
You could probably make a consumer product out of it for a retail target of around 100 to 130$.
Because it is a SoC, the hardware is fixed. This makes configuration a non-issue, if the core image is properly configured.
that's still supporting the abusive people, through the ad revinue, without supporting any alternative distributors.
I was, however, referring to services like Hulu Plus, Blockbuster streaming service, and pals. EG, the streaming services operated by the content creators, explicitly to kill netflix, and other non-vested and disruptive distributors.
Once all the contenders are gone, the rates will go back up. There is no reason for them not to.
That's what YouTube is for. :)
On the contrary. I fully expect to happen.
What else will happen, is that this behavior can't be sustained by the government, without being highly suspicious.
This is ensured, because not all "terrorists" (ahem) will be conveniently sitting alone in their houses, waiting to have their brains blown out by the keystone cops. Some of them will be in very public places at all times, and videos and other recordings of the police misconduct will escape the media blockade. The fiction simply won't be able to endure, if the rate of "actions" taken is high. Eventually, they will have to arrest someone properly, and peacefully, and the extremeness in the two events will only condemn the government for its immorality.
The same exact thing happened in india.
*sigh*
Once again, from the top:
1) Syntax, grammar, and spelling are intended to assist communication. Nothing more. "Readability" is a metric of the effectiveness of the communication.
2) Misuse of those rules to provide a service they are not, and have never been intended for (conveying how "smart", or how "valuable" the communication itself is) is not rational.
3) Drawing attention to incorrect use, as an excuse to ignore communication you find disfavorable, is pure hypocrisy. The reason it is hypocrisy, is because the premise itself relies on misuse of those rules; specifically, the attempt to use them as a metric of worthiness to communicate. Those rules are not and have never been intended for that function. Calling out misuse for the purpose of misuse is nonsensical.
4) As stated in the addendum post, I use a smartphone with a crappy IME. When coupled with the notoriously bad "slashdot mobile" experience, entire words are simply omitted during text entry, *despite being keyed*, and further, any attempts at proofreading and correction are rendered extraordinarily difficult to accomplish. Under these circumstances, "perfect communication" is not possible, without hurculean effort.
Taken all together, your insistence and arrogance on the demand clearly demonstrates several outstanding features.
1) You are unwilling to finish reading something that does not meet your onerous preconceptions of value.
2) You hypocritically misuse language rules while condemning others for a related infraction.
3) You have clearly demonstrated your own lack of tolerance in intellectual matters, giving a REAL metric of your own intellectual capacities.
4) You have clearly demonstrated that you are unable to approach the situation without subjective biases, and that you will cling to strawmen rather than actually "degrade yourself" to actually finish reading what was written.
5) You resort to adhominems and other illogical tactics when called on the above.
From this, I can only conclude that you are not nearly as intelligent and well educated as you believe yourself to be, and live in a carefully constructed fantasy setting in which you and you alone are worthy of communication, and that *any* deviation from the currently established norms for the language used, is clear evidence to support this self-narrative.
In light of that:
Which is correct: Jail, or Gaol.
After you experience that sudden burst of anger and incredulity, I challenge you to look it up.
You will find that the latter is archaic, but correct. How then did it become "jail" instead?
The simple answer, is that your preconception about "propriety" of language, and of its syntax, and use all having an ultimately and unquestionably "correct" form, simply is not conserved. It is a fantasy. One you cling desperately to, and that desperation with which you cling to it, speaks volumes about how uneducated and unintelligent you actually are.
Previously, Netflix had a much wider streaming selection, but they had a falling out with several content creators. (Who promptly created/bought their own, rival, streaming services.)
This caused netflix to lose their ability to stream that content to customers.
Complaining that "netflix is shit", and then running to the same abusive people who are responsible for cable being over priced to begin with, because they have all the content you want, really doesn't accomplish much.
Rather, you should complain that the content producers refuse to license to netflix, and other streaming services in a nondescriminiatory fashion.
I can confirm this. I saw NAKED LiON cells (1000mah) for sale... At walmart.
Walmart. Blister pack packaging.
No charge logic. Not LiPo. LiON. Naked tube cells
Needless to say, I was flabbergasted. Naked lion cells are quite dangerous. If they get shorted, they turn into little bombs. Even worse, they were in the clearance aisle. Who knows what state the chemistry was in.
If I ever see them again, i'll take pictures.
The idea is to alter the resonant properties of the sending antenna. By directly coupling with sending antenna using the near feild, we can make the signal fidelity of the broadcast signal drop to abysmally low levels.
For a realworld example, look at what happens when a small cellphone booster used for cars gets parked underneath a big cellphone tower. The broadcast power of the repeater is considerably less than the tower, but also considerably greater than a normal cellphone. The tower has to turn the reception gain way down to avoid saturation, and when it does, the actual devices it is listening for are lost in the noise floor. This makes the tower useless. This is one of the reasons why the FCC has issued strong rules about signal boosters for cellular communications.
In this case, we are basically acting like a mosquito in the device's ear. Makes hardly any noise at all, actually, but because it is so close, it drowns everthing else out. Additionally, it also acts like a kazoo, distorting all the sent signals from the antenna through direct coupled resonance, and the slight impedance of the jammer's antenna coil and capacitor putting it slightly out of phase with the sending antenna. The big antenna would be talking with marbles in its mouth.
The fact that it also is directly on top of an antenna that is supposed to be broadcasting makes detecting it nearly impossible, even if/when the signalling antenna turns its broadcast power way up to try to compensate for what it percieves as a high noise floor. (Making the signal emitted by the nearfield device greater, from the stronger resonance) The detection equipment operator will likely ignore the signal, believing it to be coming from a known source of RF energy. He would have to be looking at the raw RF histogram to notice that the signal it was emitting was highly distorted.
Making the stickers cammoflauged to avoid being easily spotted (same color as the black plastic housing of a stick antenna, with a similar matte finish, for instance) would make detecting the device even harder. Just make sure you dont leave finger prints when you affix it, unless you want the feds to pay you a visit.
You cearly do not understand what civil disobedience actually requires. There is zero resistance to arrest, and it is obvious to all that this is the case. This prevents the authorities from claiming that there was, without also losing their moral and ethical grounds for enforcement.
So, you go around sabotaging cameras, microphones, and monitoring equipment, and when the police arrest you, you comply 100% with the arrest, and make no attempts whatsoever to evade the legal consequences.