> Where's the evidence that reasonable counter measures will destroy the economy?
Where did I say that I didn't support reasonable measures?:)
I'm not accusing you of this, but debates like this both amuse and annoy me with the binary thinking: either I'm a tobacco-chawin', uninformed redneck who thinks it's fine to drive an old Ford truck that emits a smoke screen, or I completely buy into the fact that Man Is A Pestilence On The Planet(tm)(r)(c)(sm) and should just die and let Gaea have Her planet back.
I agree with you on the CFL bulbs, by the way. Incandescent lights are terribly inefficient and *should* be replaced, but I'm not sure CFL is the way to go.
My other complaint about those who push for *radical* change (again: note the use of the term *radical*, and you may couple that with "unilateral" action on our part) is that, until the Chinese agree to join in, it won't do a lick of good. Thus far, they've barely given the idea lip service. From their point of view, it's fine and dandy for us to point at their smog and smokestacks, because we've *already* built our industry.
In other words, YOU believe that there is a conspiracy (even if only de facto) amongst those who question the conclusions of those who believe in anthropogenic climate change? We have indeed fallen into infinite recursion.
Me personally? I have no use for conspiracy theories. As a friend who used to work for CIA (vigorously) explained it to me, the more complex the conspiracy, the more impossible it is. SOMEONE will blab, or will forget a laptop with all the secret codes and handshakes in the men's room at the airport. Someone will invariably sell out the conspirators to the opposition. Hey, he can get rich AND become a hero in one fell swoop!
The purpose of this article is just as offensive as the Slashdot story from a few months ago, that those who question climate change theory are no different from those who reject evolution. That's patently offensive. Like many people, I am agnostic toward AGW theory. I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me either way... so yes, I AM going to wait and see before I support drastic action that destroys the economy.
In the meantime, I *will* agitate for cleaner, greener energy, simply because it makes sense for the future. Whether we (meaning us hoomin' beans) are causing global warming is irrelevant to me. If I can reduce the gunk that I spew into the atmosphere, I want to do it. That's just common sense, and MOST people support that.
Has absolutely, utterly NOTHING to do with conspiracies, or a belief in a New World Order or anything like that.
> since the speed of the resolution of the problem is completely dependent upon the cause
The speed of resolution is dependent upon many things, including their competency, how well they *planned* for disruptions in advance and even how many employees they have. If they're just bottom fishers, a couple of guys running a service on an old Dell in their grandmother's basement, maybe I shouldn't EXPECT a quick resolution... but then, they shouldn't EXPECT to stay in business.
Sometimes things happen that you can't plan for, but they have a tendency to affect a lot of other services at the same time. Hurricane Sandy knocked out a bunch of stuff Up Nawth. (The company that I do freelance writing had already scheduled me to do an article on transmitter efficiency, then disappeared: their mail service provider was underwater.) Fine; I understand and I can be patient.
I'd need to see evidence that the OP's outage isn't caused by stinginess (refusal to have backup systems for 'zample) or just plain incompetence.
Hate to say it, but speaking from experience, almost anytime you see a business go down and stay down for weeks on end, it's either because the Russians have invaded, or they're in deep money trouble and have to scrounge for the bucks to replace the dead stuff. I rather suspect that the latter is the case here for the OP. In that case, yes, I cancel and go elsewhere. Too bad, they have my sympathies... but they no longer have my money, either.
> TIOBE is based on search hits regarding a particular language... that methodology has its own flaws
To put it mildly. Thanks for saving me the time and trouble of reading a useless article.
Case in point: I just did a search on Ada after reading some of the comments here. That will, no doubt, help make it a tiny bit more "popular" to this guy's methodology. But I have absolutely no desire to learn that language or to program in it. I'll stick with my trusty ol' C/C++.
But here's today's intriguing question: when are researchers going to notice the link between long-term sleep deprivation and (at least some forms of) Alzheimer’s Disease? I think that permanent damage can result from constant, chronic sleep deprivation.
OK, this IS off topic, but it's something I feel strongly about.
When I have mod points, I follow some simple rules. I rarely, if ever, mod someone down. I'd rather mod a good post up.
I always reserve some points just to bump up an AC who does a good job. Some people post AC because they're at work or need/want to remain anonymous, not because they're trolls. (And you didn't need to lose your mod points in this discussion; you could have posted AC yourself, then said, "posting AC 'cause I have points" and then added your name to prove it.)
I want a well-done post that makes me think, even if I strongly disagree with the poster's conclusion. It irritates me when I see someone modded down just because he/she has said something that others might disagree with. (Threads on politics, global warming and gun control come to mind.) If you mod someone down just because they attack your sacred cow, YOU are the one with the small mind... not THEM.
> So it's possible that the proton isn't getting smaller, but that everything else in the universe is expanding with the expansion of the universe.
A functioning universe is actually a very, very precariously balanced animal. The Anthropic Principle was developed essentially to explain this. (Quick and horribly inaccurate summary: the only way to get around the apparent design is by assuming that there are other "worlds," other "realms" or other universes, each with a different collection of physical laws and constants. Otherwise, you face a theological, and not physical, dilemma.):)
The strong force, the weak force, the ratio of electrons to protons, the precise distances between them, how they act, the strength of gravity, and a zillion other things must carefully balance to get a functioning cosmos. Increase gravity a smidge? You'll have to readjust everything else from the strong force to the weak force to the electromagnetic force at the same time, or the universe descends into chaos.
You and I are here because of an amazing series of coincidences regarding nuclear resonances. If you look at a periodic table, you'd wonder why, after fusing hydrogen to make helium, a typical large star doesn't make lots of lithium or beryllium. Instead, you get tons of carbon -- due to a VERY critical resonance inherent to the laws of physics. Likewise, as the star ages, when it comes time to make oxygen, an ANTI-resonance comes into play, meaning you don't destroy all of the carbon that was made previously. You get just the right amount of oxygen.
(Look up "Cosmic Coincidences" by Rees and Gribbon. Even the mass of the neutrino is absolutely critical.)
So: to get to the point here... if the distance between the nucleus and the electron shell(s) is increasing, you're going to have to diddle a whole lot of other forces and constants to keep the cosmos in balance.
Ergo, I vote for the fact that one of the methods of measurement ignored something or was in error. The actual size of the proton (and all the other constants) hasn't changed.
> There could be enough gold come from asteroid mining to completely destroy its value.
Of *ALL* key minerals, not just gold.
Recommended reading: "The Man Who Sold The Moon" by Robert Heinlein. Harriman(sp?) wasn't even interested in profits. He just wanted to go to the moon.
Your point about cartels is well-noted. For that matter, I've read that there are already enough diamonds on this planet to give everyone at least 1 carat each. I have no idea how accurate that figure is, but hey; diamonds are simply crystalline CARBON. One of the most common elements in the universe. The price is kept artificially high by a... cartel. (The Debeers group.)
But I think it's inevitable. We can decide that our generation will colonize the asteroids, or leave it to the distant future when our great-grandkids have no choice but to do so, and under much greater economic difficulty. We're running out of copper and other important metals. Gold isn't just for jewelry anymore, it has very important industrial uses.
I personally think (hope) the odds are better than that. It depends on how smart they are. (And by "they," I include Planetary Resources in that.) What's really interesting about their proposal is the use of small, inexpensive satellites and telescopes to do the initial searches.
Some skeptics point out that NASA will spend about a billion dollars just to bring a couple of ounces back to Earth. They conclude that this isn't even worth the try. My answer would be, first, well, NASA. The government. $400 hammers and toilet seats. You know. Second, for all of it's flaws, private enterprise, being profit-driven, has every incentive to find ways to do it cost-effectively. The government doesn't and never has.
> Bottom line, for me, is that they are accumulating experience and knowledge in the attempt
Bingo! You've got it. Even if these attempts fail, someone else will jump in and try a different angle.
Like I said: my intense irritation is with those who whine that we just need to make do with less, and return to a more pastoral lifestyle. Don't even bother to try. At least these people are trying. I give them two snaps for that.
> the funding for this endeavor is a bit of a question mark
Unless and until they discover an asteroid, in a favorable orbit, that has large deposits of rhodium, or palladium, or platinum, or gold. (Or even copper.)
That will bring in the speculative investors.
Once they demonstrate that they can bring these minerals back to earth at a profit, then they will have screaming investors climbing over one another to put up money for it.
I was arguing years ago that we ought to be doing this. I'm TIRED of the whiny, "only one Earth and we're running out of resources" bullcrap. If they can make this work -- and I give them an even 50/50 chance -- it'll be as revolutionary as the invention of the wheel.
> There isn't such a high density of black holes that the risk would be that high.
There isn't a very high density of sandbars and reefs in the oceans, and yet, the USS Guardian (thanks to a bad digital map and an allegedly arrogant captain who allegedly ignored a warning from officials in the Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park) managed to find one off the coast of the Philippines.:)
> I hereby declare the 775 event a giant solar flare.
I can't remember if the article specifically mentions this (yes, I did read it), but you'd think that someone would have recorded the event. We have some half-decent written records from that period, from the Chinese, if nothing else. If it was a solar event, you'd think we'd have the Mother Of All Auroras in the sky that evening. Surely someone would have noted it?
After all, the Crab Nebula was finally declared as the probable result of a supernova explosion in 1054AD, primarily from Chinese, Japanese and Arab records. Those folks were carefully watching the sky back into antiquity.
> Wouldn't it be possible to calculate where that black hole formed in the night sky at the time, and where it is located at the present?
I'm guessing insufficient data. The distance and bearing would need to be established with some precision.
As for finding a stellar-sized black hole 1,000 light years away, unless its effects can be noted, even its peripheral effects would be difficult to observe.
This is why we'll have to be careful once the scientists get off their lazy butts and give us hyperdrive. There you are, zipping along, and all of sudden, "chomp," you get eaten by an uncharted black hole.:)
> I've heard the 775 C14 anomaly attributed to a very large solar storm period too, even those these guys dismiss the idea.
The article claims that it would have to be 10 times more intense than any solar storm ever recorded. The article admits that it's a possibility, but (for various reasons) unlikely.
> If Windows is in trouble because of market shrinkage (and that's most certainly the case at the consumer level, not really at the business level), then how does decreasing Microsoft's diversification (which is what I always assumed the XBox division was all about) help things? Sure, it might make some quick cash, but then Redmond is still stuck with the same problems.
This.
I would believe that Microsoft would start deemphasizing Windows and Office in favor of more profitable activities before I'd believe this article.
I respectfully disagree, at least in part. Sure, the public admires him because he absolutely refuses to give up, in spite of disease that would have made most people surrender long before now. I respect him for that.
But to be fair, Hawking had already made a name for himself long before he landed in that wheelchair -- starting with the Adams Prize for his doctoral thesis (back in 1966). He's not just winging it or banking on public sympathy. He and Roger Penrose first established mathematically that time was a property of this universe -- that "time" as we know it didn't/doesn't exist outside of this universe.
We lay-creatures tend to think only in terms of Nobel Prizes. No, Hawking has never won one. But there are plenty of other honors that, amongst physicists, carry just as much weight (if not more). Most of them you've never heard of.
If you want another great example of an absolutely outstanding physicist who has never won a Nobel, it would be Freeman Dyson. He is just as well-regarded as Hawking, and has never been near a wheelchair.
I think you (and some of the other complainers here) are way off base on this one.
As a patient involved in this mess, first, let me say that you sure are putting a lot of people in the closet.:)
(And I heartily agree.)
As a patient, what drives me crazy is that each health care provider wants you to fill out forms with the same questions. Each form is just different enough that I can't make a standard form and just take it with me. "Yes, I have high blood pressure (and you people are part of the reason, heh), yes, I've had surgery, my father had heart trouble and both parents have had cancer," and so on. Standardize the blooming form and let me fill it out once.
This isn't an issue for some people, but my wife, just to name a good example, is one of terribly unlucky people who specializes in conditions that are uncommon. We often have to explain them, over and over again.
Pseudo Tumor Cerebri, or Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension -- hope I spelled that right -- is the best example, though she was also one of the youngest ever to need hip replacement because of avascular necrosis; in that case, Blue Cross insisted that she HAD to have been in an accident, because it just didn't happen to people her age. The form just said, "give the date of the accident and the name of the responsible party." I had to cram on that form: "NOT AN ACCIDENT."
I have to be honest: I am NOT a fan of the Affordable Care Act, at all. I won't get into that here. But I'll agree that some form of standardization, and the availability of records, is badly needed.
But I'll also add this condemnation of Microsoft. I haven't traced through their OS in many, many years, so to be fair to them, things like this may no longer be the case. But back in the day, they were *notorious* for repackaging the same code over and over and over. DOS was well-understood by that point and its vulnerabilities were well-known and easily exploited.
All because Microsoft couldn't even be bothered to reassemble or recompile key parts of the kernel.
For example, I did one of the first analysis (analysees?) of the so-called "antiexe" virus. DOS 5 through DOS 6.22 were so similar, the freakin' offsets in the kernel didn't even change(!). The entry point to the DOS kernel was in the same exact location in all. Antiexe simply looked up the DOS data segment address, then started poking in junk at the *fixed* (and known) offset of the entry point of the kernel. That way, it could bypass most current security software. (But not ours. Grin.)
Our system also addressed a killer bug (first discovered by Geoff Chappel) that Microsoft had known about, but had apparently not bothered to patch: if the partition table was recursive -- i.e., an extended table pointed back to itself -- the computer would hang during the boot. Even booting onto a floppy wouldn't work! As soon as the kernel on that floppy started trying to examine and mount the hard drive's partitions, it would loop forever. Hang tight.
I can't even imagine how many people carried their computers into a shop, only to have the tech tell them that their hard drive was defective. (I know of a couple of cases myself.)
So... believe me when I say I'm anything but a Microsoft lover. Like I said, maybe they've improved now, but back in the day, they were making money hand over fist and couldn't even be bothered to address obvious stuff like this.
Our approach was to stop viruses before they got onto the computer. I remember Wolfgang(?) with Integrity Master (another system available at the time) complaining of the same thing we did: the "AV shootouts" focused entirely on scanners.
They were easy to test! Just turn them loose on a hard drive full of virus samples and see how well they did! But what about people like us that took a different approach?
Our ARF system not only "innoculated" the executable files, I can give away some of our secrets now. (Heh. Like it matters.) I actually became a DOS "guru" and figured out ways to hook into the OS itself. We watched the SHARE hooks, too -- an obvious vulnerability that everyone else ignored. We hooked all of the standard interrupts *inside the kernel* (we didn't just patch into the interrupt chain), we captured the "trace" interrupt to see if anyone was "tunneling," we did CRC "checksums" on the actual DOS code and other key areas.
I'm not boasting, but we never, ever found a virus that could get past us. The worst case, the system would get confused and hang, but there would be no infection. After reboot, the system was still clean.
Now... how do you test that? How do you "shoot that out?" You don't. These so-called testers love scanners. SCANNERS! That's all they want to test.
That, combined with the fact that virtually no one registered it (and the additional fact that Windows 95 had come out), made us lose interest. I briefly worked on moving the blocker into a VxD, but it wasn't worth the bother.
> I am convinced there must be at least ONE shady AV company that creates viruses
Heh. We speculated about that all the time back when I was writing AV software. I know there were a few cases where "proof of concept" stuff magically sneaked out of the lab, but to be fair to the companies involved, they immediately sent full details to all of their competitors.
But you do have to wonder.:)
And if you consider those "are you sure you want to close this window?" online popup scams, they DO install malware. I guess it's just a question of whether you consider them a "shady AV company" or just outright bad guys. (I vote for the latter, myself.)
> Microsoft DOS 6 with AV built in... was defeated by every virus writer
That's because MSAV included the classic, textbook example of "security through obscurity." Utilities like FORMAT and FDISK would do the same things as some malware, which would cause false alarms. The users would be terrified by this, so there was a solution: a "secret" (wink, wink!) system call in the OS that their utilities used to temporarily disable the alarms. (!!!)
It was top secret... so naturally, everyone knew about it. A call to disable VSAFE became one thing that EVERY DOS virus writer put at the top of his code. Naturally. Of course.
Slashdot Mirror
> Where's the evidence that reasonable counter measures will destroy the economy?
Where did I say that I didn't support reasonable measures? :)
I'm not accusing you of this, but debates like this both amuse and annoy me with the binary thinking: either I'm a tobacco-chawin', uninformed redneck who thinks it's fine to drive an old Ford truck that emits a smoke screen, or I completely buy into the fact that Man Is A Pestilence On The Planet(tm)(r)(c)(sm) and should just die and let Gaea have Her planet back.
I agree with you on the CFL bulbs, by the way. Incandescent lights are terribly inefficient and *should* be replaced, but I'm not sure CFL is the way to go.
My other complaint about those who push for *radical* change (again: note the use of the term *radical*, and you may couple that with "unilateral" action on our part) is that, until the Chinese agree to join in, it won't do a lick of good. Thus far, they've barely given the idea lip service. From their point of view, it's fine and dandy for us to point at their smog and smokestacks, because we've *already* built our industry.
> to cover up your own goal here ...
In other words, YOU believe that there is a conspiracy (even if only de facto) amongst those who question the conclusions of those who believe in anthropogenic climate change? We have indeed fallen into infinite recursion.
Me personally? I have no use for conspiracy theories. As a friend who used to work for CIA (vigorously) explained it to me, the more complex the conspiracy, the more impossible it is. SOMEONE will blab, or will forget a laptop with all the secret codes and handshakes in the men's room at the airport. Someone will invariably sell out the conspirators to the opposition. Hey, he can get rich AND become a hero in one fell swoop!
The purpose of this article is just as offensive as the Slashdot story from a few months ago, that those who question climate change theory are no different from those who reject evolution. That's patently offensive. Like many people, I am agnostic toward AGW theory. I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me either way ... so yes, I AM going to wait and see before I support drastic action that destroys the economy.
In the meantime, I *will* agitate for cleaner, greener energy, simply because it makes sense for the future. Whether we (meaning us hoomin' beans) are causing global warming is irrelevant to me. If I can reduce the gunk that I spew into the atmosphere, I want to do it. That's just common sense, and MOST people support that.
Has absolutely, utterly NOTHING to do with conspiracies, or a belief in a New World Order or anything like that.
> LarryScript
Heh. You made my night with that one.
I propose a toast, followed by a vote. :)
> since the speed of the resolution of the problem is completely dependent upon the cause
The speed of resolution is dependent upon many things, including their competency, how well they *planned* for disruptions in advance and even how many employees they have. If they're just bottom fishers, a couple of guys running a service on an old Dell in their grandmother's basement, maybe I shouldn't EXPECT a quick resolution ... but then, they shouldn't EXPECT to stay in business.
Sometimes things happen that you can't plan for, but they have a tendency to affect a lot of other services at the same time. Hurricane Sandy knocked out a bunch of stuff Up Nawth. (The company that I do freelance writing had already scheduled me to do an article on transmitter efficiency, then disappeared: their mail service provider was underwater.) Fine; I understand and I can be patient.
I'd need to see evidence that the OP's outage isn't caused by stinginess (refusal to have backup systems for 'zample) or just plain incompetence.
Hate to say it, but speaking from experience, almost anytime you see a business go down and stay down for weeks on end, it's either because the Russians have invaded, or they're in deep money trouble and have to scrounge for the bucks to replace the dead stuff. I rather suspect that the latter is the case here for the OP. In that case, yes, I cancel and go elsewhere. Too bad, they have my sympathies ... but they no longer have my money, either.
> TIOBE is based on search hits regarding a particular language ... that methodology has its own flaws
To put it mildly. Thanks for saving me the time and trouble of reading a useless article.
Case in point: I just did a search on Ada after reading some of the comments here. That will, no doubt, help make it a tiny bit more "popular" to this guy's methodology. But I have absolutely no desire to learn that language or to program in it. I'll stick with my trusty ol' C/C++.
> actual interactive GUI applications
Or games. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_Bubble
One of my favorite games was written in Perl, using the SDL for the graphics.
Whether it was the "best" choice or not is for another debate. But you're right, if you want to think outside the box, Perl will go there, too. :)
But here's today's intriguing question: when are researchers going to notice the link between long-term sleep deprivation and (at least some forms of) Alzheimer’s Disease? I think that permanent damage can result from constant, chronic sleep deprivation.
Bootable CD or DVD with tools on it. Worth its weight in gold.
OK, this IS off topic, but it's something I feel strongly about.
When I have mod points, I follow some simple rules. I rarely, if ever, mod someone down. I'd rather mod a good post up.
I always reserve some points just to bump up an AC who does a good job. Some people post AC because they're at work or need/want to remain anonymous, not because they're trolls. (And you didn't need to lose your mod points in this discussion; you could have posted AC yourself, then said, "posting AC 'cause I have points" and then added your name to prove it.)
I want a well-done post that makes me think, even if I strongly disagree with the poster's conclusion. It irritates me when I see someone modded down just because he/she has said something that others might disagree with. (Threads on politics, global warming and gun control come to mind.) If you mod someone down just because they attack your sacred cow, YOU are the one with the small mind ... not THEM.
> So it's possible that the proton isn't getting smaller, but that everything else in the universe is expanding with the expansion of the universe.
A functioning universe is actually a very, very precariously balanced animal. The Anthropic Principle was developed essentially to explain this. (Quick and horribly inaccurate summary: the only way to get around the apparent design is by assuming that there are other "worlds," other "realms" or other universes, each with a different collection of physical laws and constants. Otherwise, you face a theological, and not physical, dilemma.) :)
The strong force, the weak force, the ratio of electrons to protons, the precise distances between them, how they act, the strength of gravity, and a zillion other things must carefully balance to get a functioning cosmos. Increase gravity a smidge? You'll have to readjust everything else from the strong force to the weak force to the electromagnetic force at the same time, or the universe descends into chaos.
You and I are here because of an amazing series of coincidences regarding nuclear resonances. If you look at a periodic table, you'd wonder why, after fusing hydrogen to make helium, a typical large star doesn't make lots of lithium or beryllium. Instead, you get tons of carbon -- due to a VERY critical resonance inherent to the laws of physics. Likewise, as the star ages, when it comes time to make oxygen, an ANTI-resonance comes into play, meaning you don't destroy all of the carbon that was made previously. You get just the right amount of oxygen.
(Look up "Cosmic Coincidences" by Rees and Gribbon. Even the mass of the neutrino is absolutely critical.)
So: to get to the point here ... if the distance between the nucleus and the electron shell(s) is increasing, you're going to have to diddle a whole lot of other forces and constants to keep the cosmos in balance.
Ergo, I vote for the fact that one of the methods of measurement ignored something or was in error. The actual size of the proton (and all the other constants) hasn't changed.
> There could be enough gold come from asteroid mining to completely destroy its value.
Of *ALL* key minerals, not just gold.
Recommended reading: "The Man Who Sold The Moon" by Robert Heinlein. Harriman(sp?) wasn't even interested in profits. He just wanted to go to the moon.
Your point about cartels is well-noted. For that matter, I've read that there are already enough diamonds on this planet to give everyone at least 1 carat each. I have no idea how accurate that figure is, but hey; diamonds are simply crystalline CARBON. One of the most common elements in the universe. The price is kept artificially high by a ... cartel. (The Debeers group.)
But I think it's inevitable. We can decide that our generation will colonize the asteroids, or leave it to the distant future when our great-grandkids have no choice but to do so, and under much greater economic difficulty. We're running out of copper and other important metals. Gold isn't just for jewelry anymore, it has very important industrial uses.
> 50/50 chance
I personally think (hope) the odds are better than that. It depends on how smart they are. (And by "they," I include Planetary Resources in that.) What's really interesting about their proposal is the use of small, inexpensive satellites and telescopes to do the initial searches.
Some skeptics point out that NASA will spend about a billion dollars just to bring a couple of ounces back to Earth. They conclude that this isn't even worth the try. My answer would be, first, well, NASA. The government. $400 hammers and toilet seats. You know. Second, for all of it's flaws, private enterprise, being profit-driven, has every incentive to find ways to do it cost-effectively. The government doesn't and never has.
> Bottom line, for me, is that they are accumulating experience and knowledge in the attempt
Bingo! You've got it. Even if these attempts fail, someone else will jump in and try a different angle.
Like I said: my intense irritation is with those who whine that we just need to make do with less, and return to a more pastoral lifestyle. Don't even bother to try. At least these people are trying. I give them two snaps for that.
> the funding for this endeavor is a bit of a question mark
Unless and until they discover an asteroid, in a favorable orbit, that has large deposits of rhodium, or palladium, or platinum, or gold. (Or even copper.)
That will bring in the speculative investors.
Once they demonstrate that they can bring these minerals back to earth at a profit, then they will have screaming investors climbing over one another to put up money for it.
I was arguing years ago that we ought to be doing this. I'm TIRED of the whiny, "only one Earth and we're running out of resources" bullcrap. If they can make this work -- and I give them an even 50/50 chance -- it'll be as revolutionary as the invention of the wheel.
> There isn't such a high density of black holes that the risk would be that high.
There isn't a very high density of sandbars and reefs in the oceans, and yet, the USS Guardian (thanks to a bad digital map and an allegedly arrogant captain who allegedly ignored a warning from officials in the Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park) managed to find one off the coast of the Philippines. :)
> Yet here I am, sitting on the toilet and crapping while I type this on my phone.
Your fingers must be a blur if you're going to finish your bid'ness AND get something posted to Slashdot within that 50 second time limit.
Just sayin' ...
> I hereby declare the 775 event a giant solar flare.
I can't remember if the article specifically mentions this (yes, I did read it), but you'd think that someone would have recorded the event. We have some half-decent written records from that period, from the Chinese, if nothing else. If it was a solar event, you'd think we'd have the Mother Of All Auroras in the sky that evening. Surely someone would have noted it?
After all, the Crab Nebula was finally declared as the probable result of a supernova explosion in 1054AD, primarily from Chinese, Japanese and Arab records. Those folks were carefully watching the sky back into antiquity.
> Wouldn't it be possible to calculate where that black hole formed in the night sky at the time, and where it is located at the present?
I'm guessing insufficient data. The distance and bearing would need to be established with some precision.
As for finding a stellar-sized black hole 1,000 light years away, unless its effects can be noted, even its peripheral effects would be difficult to observe.
This is why we'll have to be careful once the scientists get off their lazy butts and give us hyperdrive. There you are, zipping along, and all of sudden, "chomp," you get eaten by an uncharted black hole. :)
> I've heard the 775 C14 anomaly attributed to a very large solar storm period too, even those these guys dismiss the idea.
The article claims that it would have to be 10 times more intense than any solar storm ever recorded. The article admits that it's a possibility, but (for various reasons) unlikely.
> If Windows is in trouble because of market shrinkage (and that's most certainly the case at the consumer level, not really at the business level), then how does decreasing Microsoft's diversification (which is what I always assumed the XBox division was all about) help things? Sure, it might make some quick cash, but then Redmond is still stuck with the same problems.
This.
I would believe that Microsoft would start deemphasizing Windows and Office in favor of more profitable activities before I'd believe this article.
> If he wasn't crippled, he wouldn't be an idol.
I respectfully disagree, at least in part. Sure, the public admires him because he absolutely refuses to give up, in spite of disease that would have made most people surrender long before now. I respect him for that.
But to be fair, Hawking had already made a name for himself long before he landed in that wheelchair -- starting with the Adams Prize for his doctoral thesis (back in 1966). He's not just winging it or banking on public sympathy. He and Roger Penrose first established mathematically that time was a property of this universe -- that "time" as we know it didn't/doesn't exist outside of this universe.
We lay-creatures tend to think only in terms of Nobel Prizes. No, Hawking has never won one. But there are plenty of other honors that, amongst physicists, carry just as much weight (if not more). Most of them you've never heard of.
If you want another great example of an absolutely outstanding physicist who has never won a Nobel, it would be Freeman Dyson. He is just as well-regarded as Hawking, and has never been near a wheelchair.
I think you (and some of the other complainers here) are way off base on this one.
As a patient involved in this mess, first, let me say that you sure are putting a lot of people in the closet. :)
(And I heartily agree.)
As a patient, what drives me crazy is that each health care provider wants you to fill out forms with the same questions. Each form is just different enough that I can't make a standard form and just take it with me. "Yes, I have high blood pressure (and you people are part of the reason, heh), yes, I've had surgery, my father had heart trouble and both parents have had cancer," and so on. Standardize the blooming form and let me fill it out once.
This isn't an issue for some people, but my wife, just to name a good example, is one of terribly unlucky people who specializes in conditions that are uncommon. We often have to explain them, over and over again.
Pseudo Tumor Cerebri, or Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension -- hope I spelled that right -- is the best example, though she was also one of the youngest ever to need hip replacement because of avascular necrosis; in that case, Blue Cross insisted that she HAD to have been in an accident, because it just didn't happen to people her age. The form just said, "give the date of the accident and the name of the responsible party." I had to cram on that form: "NOT AN ACCIDENT."
I have to be honest: I am NOT a fan of the Affordable Care Act, at all. I won't get into that here. But I'll agree that some form of standardization, and the availability of records, is badly needed.
But I'll also add this condemnation of Microsoft. I haven't traced through their OS in many, many years, so to be fair to them, things like this may no longer be the case. But back in the day, they were *notorious* for repackaging the same code over and over and over. DOS was well-understood by that point and its vulnerabilities were well-known and easily exploited.
All because Microsoft couldn't even be bothered to reassemble or recompile key parts of the kernel.
For example, I did one of the first analysis (analysees?) of the so-called "antiexe" virus. DOS 5 through DOS 6.22 were so similar, the freakin' offsets in the kernel didn't even change(!). The entry point to the DOS kernel was in the same exact location in all. Antiexe simply looked up the DOS data segment address, then started poking in junk at the *fixed* (and known) offset of the entry point of the kernel. That way, it could bypass most current security software. (But not ours. Grin.)
Our system also addressed a killer bug (first discovered by Geoff Chappel) that Microsoft had known about, but had apparently not bothered to patch: if the partition table was recursive -- i.e., an extended table pointed back to itself -- the computer would hang during the boot. Even booting onto a floppy wouldn't work! As soon as the kernel on that floppy started trying to examine and mount the hard drive's partitions, it would loop forever. Hang tight.
I can't even imagine how many people carried their computers into a shop, only to have the tech tell them that their hard drive was defective. (I know of a couple of cases myself.)
So ... believe me when I say I'm anything but a Microsoft lover. Like I said, maybe they've improved now, but back in the day, they were making money hand over fist and couldn't even be bothered to address obvious stuff like this.
I'm not surprised at all.
Our approach was to stop viruses before they got onto the computer. I remember Wolfgang(?) with Integrity Master (another system available at the time) complaining of the same thing we did: the "AV shootouts" focused entirely on scanners.
They were easy to test! Just turn them loose on a hard drive full of virus samples and see how well they did! But what about people like us that took a different approach?
Our ARF system not only "innoculated" the executable files, I can give away some of our secrets now. (Heh. Like it matters.) I actually became a DOS "guru" and figured out ways to hook into the OS itself. We watched the SHARE hooks, too -- an obvious vulnerability that everyone else ignored. We hooked all of the standard interrupts *inside the kernel* (we didn't just patch into the interrupt chain), we captured the "trace" interrupt to see if anyone was "tunneling," we did CRC "checksums" on the actual DOS code and other key areas.
I'm not boasting, but we never, ever found a virus that could get past us. The worst case, the system would get confused and hang, but there would be no infection. After reboot, the system was still clean.
Now ... how do you test that? How do you "shoot that out?" You don't. These so-called testers love scanners. SCANNERS! That's all they want to test.
That, combined with the fact that virtually no one registered it (and the additional fact that Windows 95 had come out), made us lose interest. I briefly worked on moving the blocker into a VxD, but it wasn't worth the bother.
> I am convinced there must be at least ONE shady AV company that creates viruses
Heh. We speculated about that all the time back when I was writing AV software. I know there were a few cases where "proof of concept" stuff magically sneaked out of the lab, but to be fair to the companies involved, they immediately sent full details to all of their competitors.
But you do have to wonder. :)
And if you consider those "are you sure you want to close this window?" online popup scams, they DO install malware. I guess it's just a question of whether you consider them a "shady AV company" or just outright bad guys. (I vote for the latter, myself.)
> Microsoft DOS 6 with AV built in ... was defeated by every virus writer
That's because MSAV included the classic, textbook example of "security through obscurity." Utilities like FORMAT and FDISK would do the same things as some malware, which would cause false alarms. The users would be terrified by this, so there was a solution: a "secret" (wink, wink!) system call in the OS that their utilities used to temporarily disable the alarms. (!!!)
It was top secret ... so naturally, everyone knew about it. A call to disable VSAFE became one thing that EVERY DOS virus writer put at the top of his code. Naturally. Of course.
Ah, you're bringing back memories now. :)