"Be afraid, be very afraid! That all you need to know" - seems like a good point to me (even if it's not necessary good for me or, for the matter, for the rest of about 7 billions with the exception of the people in power).
At $5, 3 handouts the size of a postcard seems to be a good course support. But again, an "online course support" as suggested should be equally effective for students not suffering from ADHD.
I mean... what the hell? Has anyone of/. readers seen a kitchen with lasers yet?
My infrared thermometer has a laser, does that count?
I don't know, you are in a better position than me to tell if that laser counts or not. (even if, in my mind, to use a laser for counting is an overkill; I imagine fingers - up to ten - or beans/grains for over ten are better suited for counting than a laser)
They already have a solution to this problem. Under new policy, the drone operators will have the right to take out backyard hobbyists on U.S. soil, just like they currently do overseas. Try to test an interference device, and you'll soon be at the unpleasant end of a hellfire missile trajectory.
Don't forget the double tap procedure... needs to become an operational standard.
will come up with an easy way to interfere/take over/destroy/ shoot down said drones...and this technology, whatever it is, will be then used by people in other countries to take out OUR drones
You mean... the drones taken out by the hobbyists on US soil will be foreign drones (as opposed to OUR drones flying overseas)?
They could, but it would be too expensive in terms citizens' taxes spent on fuel.
The FAA and others seem mostly concerned about the drones hitting things if their GPS and ground communications are both disrupted
Fear not, hurdles are only temporary... I mean... look: if one is able to use explosives and still doesn't have the desired results, it simply means one is not using enough of them. Hitting the hurdles with the appropriate amount of explosives will surely clear them... after that, everybody (still living) will be protected by them drones.
Clearly, you won the argument, I'm speechless in the face of your eloquence. My apologies for expressing my opinion, hijacking and obfuscating the otherwise a so interesting and fertile soil for insightful exploration on the matter of patents; I didn't realize a titan of patent topics is present on the thread to set the things straight, mea culpa.
I just hope I made your day feel worth living with my above admission, it seems winning is more important to you that carrying a dialog. Keep up the good work and, as a humble suggestion, spend less time on/. - it may interfere too much with your patent legal career.
(btw: I argue the patent is obvious and "a plurality of previous art exists". You only need to look for "rolling logs" and you'll see the same principle applied there; the fact that one is distributing the logs - or any "file segments" - over multiple devices/nodes/filesystems/tapes/whatever and still manages them without the need of an external "library index" or "database", but only following conventions on location/naming - is exactly what I accused in "obvious patents with the extra in the cloud claim")
Translation: "I have no actual response to your substantive comments, so I'll cut off your post at the second word and quibble about that one word. Hopefully, no one will notice."
Would your second comment come with a rectification of the misuse of FUD (I don't know... probably some apologies for misusing it) maybe I'd be inclined to consider what comes after the offending word. With the lack of even an attempt for rectification and even adding a bit more... insomnia or not, I'm not going to waste the time to read some opinions pushed a second time with a pretense of significance. I hope you'll find the satisfaction of others noticing your comment and give it more attention than I did, maybe it deserves it.
So, I'm seeing a guy writing approx 3500 word about another guy that says a kitchen with lasers is bad in 400+ pages. And the first guy agrees 1/3 with the second. Even more, the points of disagreement seems not to be related with the lasers in the kitchen, but with a bunch of site that don't warn the cooks to wear gloves when cutting hot pepper.
I mean... what the hell? Has anyone of/. readers seen a kitchen with lasers yet?
If you actually read the patent, it is specifically for a similar method, but designed for Distributed File Systems.
Ahhhh... that's good.
You see, I was scared shitless that we are still quibbling over patents granted with the only claimed difference over some old methods (patented or not) being "on a computer".
I see now how wrong I was: we stepped in the glorious era of the "in the cloud" claims.
More FUD
FUD? FUD you say? "You Keep Using That Word, I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means"
I'm trying to scare nobody from nothing and neither cast any doubt on the patents on software (to me, it's clear: they are crap. You believe what you want about them). I'd see acceptable for you to say about my post "That's shit... and of a bull origin!"; at least you'd be entitled to your own opinion and I'd try to see how you argue it. But FUD? That's so wrong, I stopped reading there.
You're assuming that the metastable state would be nucleated by those high energies.
Yes, indeed (with the pedantic correction of: the transition from metastable state would be nucleated)
Some of the potential nucleation methods discussed require much higher energies, well beyond the GZK cutoff, and/or particularly high energy densities.
GZK is not necessarily an absolute cutoff: energies well beyond it are "allowed" to exist, just need to be closer than GZK horizon to the source producing them (over 100 Mly if memory serves).
If by vibration you mean heat and flow of the water, and by rest/ground state you meant frozen water, your analogy would work if you could supercool the lake below the freezing point.
Well, while you are right, that's a big claim for the state of the universe. Because it will require the entire universe be in a "super-cooled" state; you see, there are quite a high number of events that would cause not only the tunneling but jumping over the metastable barrier, so that the probability of at least a "nucleation event" in the Universe seems to be very close to one. And still, the Universe seems to be warm enough for everything we know to continue to exist (or maybe it isn't that warm and we don't know it yet).
If you actually read the patent, it is specifically for a similar method, but designed for Distributed File Systems.
Ahhhh... that's good.
You see, I was scared shitless that we are still quibbling over patents granted with the only claimed difference over some old methods (patented or not) being "on a computer". I see now how wrong I was: we stepped in the glorious era of the "in the cloud" claims.
It's called a false vacuum. The section you want is on bubble nucleation. Basically, the bubble created has a less interior energy than outside so the outside energy flows in which causes the bubble walls to expand until everyplace is now at the new lower energy.
A bit strange... it's like saying that, on a surface of a lake in constant vibration (thus at higher energy than the "rest/ground state"), if somehow a patch of "surface at rest" develops, suddenly (with the speed of the surface wave) all the lake surface will be "dead and boring".
The above is a forced analogy and I user it only to set the context for my next question: what happens with the entire energy resulted from the transition, where would it "evaporate"? What other "particles" would be created in the process? What is the cross-section of these particles in interaction with the surrounding "unrestless void" ? How can you be sure that the interaction cross-section is big enough to cause a cascading effect similar with lasing?
After all, we may already have seen the results of energies higher than the necessary "metastable vacuum" would require to trip a "stable state", without experiencing any cascading effect. For all we know, this may be happening at any given time in this universe.
He said the parameters for our universe, including the Higgs mass value as well as the mass of another subatomic particle known as the top quark, suggest that we're just at the edge of stability, in a "metastable" state. Physicists have been contemplating such a possibility for more than 30 years. Back in 1982, physicists Michael Turner and Frank Wilczek wrote in Nature that "without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light, and before we realized what swept by us our protons would decay away."
These seem to imply:
1. a Higgs boson is a metastable state, would decay in top quark
2. the half-life of this metastable state is billions of years
3. the moment even a single such decay event happens, the other Higgs bosons around would "sense" this and spontaneously decay as well, in a sort of chain reaction happening in a Laser medium
If assumption 3 is valid, then 1. and 2. say it can happen any time (with very low probability, but not impossible)
But, I wonder, what exactly suggest that 3. is a valid assumption? For example, not all spontaneous fission reactions that we know of are chain reactions.
[Citation needed]. No, it's not trolling, just a terse way to suggest there could be massive +Informative mods for any links to pages in which TPB actually mocks CPIAC.
0. It was Perl's built in features, such as regex, system calls, and ability to be terse enough to enter a solution on a single swinging pass that make it an obvious choice -- It was made for this type of job.
Whenever the problem allows for a single pass.
1. I'm confident that if we have not already, we will soon reach a point where entire discussions can be composed of no text other than xkcd links.
Due to limited contexts available on xkcd, I surmise we are quite far at that point. E.g. I challenge you to find the very basic "laser on sharks" or "car analogies" cartoons on xkcd.com. "grits" (hot or not), "petrified/statue" etc??? Not a chance in hell.
Slashdot Mirror
The original
"Make no mistake,
Translation
Seriously, what's the point of that Obama quote?
"Be afraid, be very afraid! That all you need to know" - seems like a good point to me (even if it's not necessary good for me or, for the matter, for the rest of about 7 billions with the exception of the people in power).
At $5, 3 handouts the size of a postcard seems to be a good course support.
But again, an "online course support" as suggested should be equally effective for students not suffering from ADHD.
Unless they have Space Police out there.
Dang! And Obama just declined to build that Death Star. What a lack of long term thinking!
I'm pretty sure Grand Fenwick isn't a signatory either. IMO, a much more appropriate choice.
Ummm... Principality of Hutt River may not have signed it either.
I mean... what the hell? Has anyone of /. readers seen a kitchen with lasers yet?
My infrared thermometer has a laser, does that count?
I don't know, you are in a better position than me to tell if that laser counts or not.
(even if, in my mind, to use a laser for counting is an overkill; I imagine fingers - up to ten - or beans/grains for over ten are better suited for counting than a laser)
They already have a solution to this problem. Under new policy, the drone operators will have the right to take out backyard hobbyists on U.S. soil, just like they currently do overseas. Try to test an interference device, and you'll soon be at the unpleasant end of a hellfire missile trajectory.
Don't forget the double tap procedure... needs to become an operational standard.
will come up with an easy way to interfere/take over/destroy/ shoot down said drones...and this technology, whatever it is, will be then used by people in other countries to take out OUR drones
You mean... the drones taken out by the hobbyists on US soil will be foreign drones (as opposed to OUR drones flying overseas)?
Why can't they just fly OVER the hurdles?
They could, but it would be too expensive in terms citizens' taxes spent on fuel.
The FAA and others seem mostly concerned about the drones hitting things if their GPS and ground communications are both disrupted
Fear not, hurdles are only temporary... I mean... look: if one is able to use explosives and still doesn't have the desired results, it simply means one is not using enough of them. Hitting the hurdles with the appropriate amount of explosives will surely clear them... after that, everybody (still living) will be protected by them drones.
Clearly, you won the argument, I'm speechless in the face of your eloquence. My apologies for expressing my opinion, hijacking and obfuscating the otherwise a so interesting and fertile soil for insightful exploration on the matter of patents; I didn't realize a titan of patent topics is present on the thread to set the things straight, mea culpa.
I just hope I made your day feel worth living with my above admission, it seems winning is more important to you that carrying a dialog. Keep up the good work and, as a humble suggestion, spend less time on /. - it may interfere too much with your patent legal career.
(btw: I argue the patent is obvious and "a plurality of previous art exists". You only need to look for "rolling logs" and you'll see the same principle applied there; the fact that one is distributing the logs - or any "file segments" - over multiple devices/nodes/filesystems/tapes/whatever and still manages them without the need of an external "library index" or "database", but only following conventions on location/naming - is exactly what I accused in "obvious patents with the extra in the cloud claim")
Translation: "I have no actual response to your substantive comments, so I'll cut off your post at the second word and quibble about that one word. Hopefully, no one will notice."
Would your second comment come with a rectification of the misuse of FUD (I don't know... probably some apologies for misusing it) maybe I'd be inclined to consider what comes after the offending word.
With the lack of even an attempt for rectification and even adding a bit more... insomnia or not, I'm not going to waste the time to read some opinions pushed a second time with a pretense of significance. I hope you'll find the satisfaction of others noticing your comment and give it more attention than I did, maybe it deserves it.
Have a nice day ahead mate
So, I'm seeing a guy writing approx 3500 word about another guy that says a kitchen with lasers is bad in 400+ pages. And the first guy agrees 1/3 with the second. Even more, the points of disagreement seems not to be related with the lasers in the kitchen, but with a bunch of site that don't warn the cooks to wear gloves when cutting hot pepper. /. readers seen a kitchen with lasers yet?
I mean... what the hell? Has anyone of
The Supreme Court cannot 'reach a ruling in contradiction with the law'.
Sure they can. Who is going to stop them?
Me! I'm going to swe 'dem!
(sorry for bad puns. Insomnia and all that)
If you actually read the patent, it is specifically for a similar method, but designed for Distributed File Systems.
Ahhhh... that's good.
You see, I was scared shitless that we are still quibbling over patents granted with the only claimed difference over some old methods (patented or not) being "on a computer". I see now how wrong I was: we stepped in the glorious era of the "in the cloud" claims.
More FUD
FUD? FUD you say? "You Keep Using That Word, I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means"
I'm trying to scare nobody from nothing and neither cast any doubt on the patents on software (to me, it's clear: they are crap. You believe what you want about them).
I'd see acceptable for you to say about my post "That's shit... and of a bull origin!"; at least you'd be entitled to your own opinion and I'd try to see how you argue it. But FUD? That's so wrong, I stopped reading there.
As with North Korea's nuclear program, details are scarce,
Has anyone detected Xenon-133 that can be traced to Seattle yet, or did MS manage to contain it pretty well underground?
You're assuming that the metastable state would be nucleated by those high energies.
Yes, indeed (with the pedantic correction of: the transition from metastable state would be nucleated)
Some of the potential nucleation methods discussed require much higher energies, well beyond the GZK cutoff, and/or particularly high energy densities.
GZK is not necessarily an absolute cutoff: energies well beyond it are "allowed" to exist, just need to be closer than GZK horizon to the source producing them (over 100 Mly if memory serves).
If by vibration you mean heat and flow of the water, and by rest/ground state you meant frozen water, your analogy would work if you could supercool the lake below the freezing point.
Well, while you are right, that's a big claim for the state of the universe. Because it will require the entire universe be in a "super-cooled" state; you see, there are quite a high number of events that would cause not only the tunneling but jumping over the metastable barrier, so that the probability of at least a "nucleation event" in the Universe seems to be very close to one. And still, the Universe seems to be warm enough for everything we know to continue to exist (or maybe it isn't that warm and we don't know it yet).
If you actually read the patent, it is specifically for a similar method, but designed for Distributed File Systems.
Ahhhh... that's good.
You see, I was scared shitless that we are still quibbling over patents granted with the only claimed difference over some old methods (patented or not) being "on a computer".
I see now how wrong I was: we stepped in the glorious era of the "in the cloud" claims.
It's called a false vacuum. The section you want is on bubble nucleation. Basically, the bubble created has a less interior energy than outside so the outside energy flows in which causes the bubble walls to expand until everyplace is now at the new lower energy.
A bit strange... it's like saying that, on a surface of a lake in constant vibration (thus at higher energy than the "rest/ground state"), if somehow a patch of "surface at rest" develops, suddenly (with the speed of the surface wave) all the lake surface will be "dead and boring".
The above is a forced analogy and I user it only to set the context for my next question: what happens with the entire energy resulted from the transition, where would it "evaporate"? What other "particles" would be created in the process? What is the cross-section of these particles in interaction with the surrounding "unrestless void" ? How can you be sure that the interaction cross-section is big enough to cause a cascading effect similar with lasing?
After all, we may already have seen the results of energies higher than the necessary "metastable vacuum" would require to trip a "stable state", without experiencing any cascading effect. For all we know, this may be happening at any given time in this universe.
He said the parameters for our universe, including the Higgs mass value as well as the mass of another subatomic particle known as the top quark, suggest that we're just at the edge of stability, in a "metastable" state. Physicists have been contemplating such a possibility for more than 30 years. Back in 1982, physicists Michael Turner and Frank Wilczek wrote in Nature that "without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light, and before we realized what swept by us our protons would decay away."
These seem to imply:
1. a Higgs boson is a metastable state, would decay in top quark
2. the half-life of this metastable state is billions of years
3. the moment even a single such decay event happens, the other Higgs bosons around would "sense" this and spontaneously decay as well, in a sort of chain reaction happening in a Laser medium
If assumption 3 is valid, then 1. and 2. say it can happen any time (with very low probability, but not impossible)
But, I wonder, what exactly suggest that 3. is a valid assumption? For example, not all spontaneous fission reactions that we know of are chain reactions.
They are rolling on the floor laughing
[Citation needed].
No, it's not trolling, just a terse way to suggest there could be massive +Informative mods for any links to pages in which TPB actually mocks CPIAC.
Obligatory Rebuttal xkcd
This is interesting for two reasons:
0. It was Perl's built in features, such as regex, system calls, and ability to be terse enough to enter a solution on a single swinging pass that make it an obvious choice -- It was made for this type of job.
Whenever the problem allows for a single pass.
1. I'm confident that if we have not already, we will soon reach a point where entire discussions can be composed of no text other than xkcd links.
Due to limited contexts available on xkcd, I surmise we are quite far at that point. E.g. I challenge you to find the very basic "laser on sharks" or "car analogies" cartoons on xkcd.com.
"grits" (hot or not), "petrified/statue" etc??? Not a chance in hell.
I would have suggested they mine the asteroid.
I'm sure they could... if only the congress would approve some budget to get Bruce Willis and the others on it.
NASA's Pleiades is 14th in top500 (at the level of Oct 2012)... I guess it still qualifies to "plenty of computation power".