If they were successful they wouldnt tell you. Because then it wouldnt be classified. Unclassified results failed to produce.
While I admit that such can be the case, isn't it a tad convenient that the very "success" of the conspiracy theory mandates its essential non-falsifiability? I have a magic talisman on my keychain that keeps away elephants. How do I know it works? Well, you don't see any elephants around here...
OK, your argument leaves me confused. You say NASA spent $600K, which I will believe, and quote extensively from an abstract of a proposal. You don't actually quote any results. The proposal itself says it will look for evidence or refutation -- meaning they hadn't, at that stage, found any evidence (or it would be redundant). It's now three years later and no followup seems to have come about.
You then have a bunch of slashdot-imposed link boxes [lanl.gov], etc., but no actual links.
The space.com article starts off with "NASA's Controversial Gravity Shield Experiment Fails to Produce" (my emphasis). They also comment "What has dogged the research, experts say, is that Podkletnov failed to adequately document his findings." This seems to be a bad habit of people proposing these sorts of exotic, revolutionary theories.
Ning Lee's proposal, which is not yet accepted anyway, isn't true antigravity. It's just another kind of motor. We can create "antigravity" by exclusion of magnetic field lines from a superconductor, in that this generates lift. Wait, wait, we can create "antigravity" by running air past a suitably shaped wing!
On the other hand, true antigravity -- say, a shielding of gravity's effects -- requires a complete change in how we perceive the laws of nature. I'm all for that, but not until you show me the peer-reviewed, well-documented, empirical evidence. I don't buy into the bullcrap conspiracy theories that act like the physicists of the world would engage in sinister collaboration to suppress wild new results. The fact is, most physicists would love to hear about easily-accessible fundamentally new physics.
Any real scientist or expert in physics knows anti gravity is possible, they also know our government most likely have anti gravity,
Well, that's a sweeping generalization that isn't true. Assuming by "antigravity" you mean an actual fundamental interaction, I haven't met a single "real scientist" who believes in it strongly. ("Antigravity" meaning "opposing gravity" is trivial... jump, for example.) Many believe there might be something fundamental -- for instance, a difference in how antimatter and matter couple to the gravitational field, leading antimatter to have a repulsive compoent to its gravitational interaction -- but as far as I've ever heard, no peer-reviewed paper has ever been published claiming to have seen that effect experimentally.
Your post is so riddled with errors, it's hard to decide where to begin.
is that, then, you have to get everything right yourself, or you look like an idiot. Alas,
The weak force holds protons to neutrons, and neutrons to neutrons.
isn't so. The strong force binds nucleon to nucleon -- so p-p, n-n, and p-n are all strong interactions. IIRC (and it's been a while, so no guarantees), the weak nuclear force changes the "flavor" of heavy leptons and quarks, leading to instability. (Of course, the Standard Model has unified EM and weak into electroweak.)
They decided that having pirates chasing women in Pirates of the Caribbean wasn't PC anymore so they have them chasing men now!
I think there is a distinction here. It's not like Disney felt the chasing was wrong. They felt it might be unpopular and open to critcism. I'd bet money that their decision was prompted only by considerations of cash flow, not political philosophy.
Does anyone have an idea for a "user-friendly" name for the CBDTPA? It doesn't really have to have anything to do with the official name. I'm just thinking of the fight over the estate tax. No matter where you fall on that issue, you've got to realize that Republicans picked up a lot of traction with it when they came up with "death tax" instead of "estate tax".
We need a similarly pithy handle for this bill, that can be used to strip away the mind-numbing acronym.
Well, yes and no. If by "biography" you mean the particular book (or other account of someone's life), then that is a creative work and so copyrighted. If you mean "biography" as the details of someone's life -- but not any particular rendering of these facts into, say, conversational English -- then they are facts and not copyrightable.
In other words, I can read McCullogh's book on John Adams and discover that Adam died on July 4, 1826. MuCullogh cannot sue me for copyright infringement for that statement. But if I were to copy, wholesale, the section in his book where he relays that act, he can sue me.
Hey, I finally get to grouse about submitting a story, having it rejected, and five hours later having the exact same story show up under an editor's name. Yay, I'm part of the repressed! I feel like I've really made it.
Anyway, my story was cooler because it included the great closing line from the article,
"Will I use it in the wrong way?" he said. "No." Then he paused. "But then again, what is to stop the next guy?"
Aahh, what do I care? I made it into the Washington Post today!:)
Well, Andrew Wiles will have issues with you, and most of the math community agress with him, I believe
For powers of 3 and 4, fermat has been proven wrong by computers already.
Um, no. Fermat's Last Theorem was the statement that
x^n + y^n = z^n
has no solution where x, y, and z are all integers, if n>3.
To disprove Fermat's Theorem, all you would need to do would be to find a triplet of integers that obeys the equation above. Computers proved that for n < 12 (IIRC), there were none. But that doesn't prove the Theorem and (of course) fails to disprove it.
I think you confused the sense of the Theorem, perhaps because it is phrased negatively.
Re:Slashcode's HTML vs. Microsoft HTML
on
SedSokoban
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Blockquoth the poster:
Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.
Interesting. When I tried "www.microsoft.com", I received the much more alarming
Fatal Error: no document type declaration; will parse without validation I could not parse this document, because it uses a public identifier that is not in my catalog. You should make the first line of your HTML document a DOCTYPE declaration, for example, for a typical HTML 4.01 document:
It seems to me that "fatal error" is a lot worse than a bunch of formatting tags that don't parse. Of course, this is Microsoft, where "fatal error" is better known as "standard operating procedure".:)
Oh, by the way, the page choked on both Opera and IE, so it's not a browser thing. And it choked on "microsoft.com", too. On the other hand, "msn.com" only produced 19 errors, of essentially the same type as "slashdot.org".
but if the poles just flipped, imagine what chaos it would cause
The orientation of the field doesn't really matter too much. I mean, we'd have to relabel compasses, etc., but no big deal.
But... during the reversal, the magnetic field actually fades to (essentially) zero, and does so for a noticeable length of time. In that circumstance, the Van Allen Belts disappear and the surface no longer has its usual protection from solar wind, cosmic rays, etc. That's the time to worry.
I just wonder what makes people think that the pole is special enough so that they want to conceive their children there.
Magnetic fields, like electric fields, are the modern equivalent of leprechauns, fairies, and demons. For the typical layperson, they are invisible, subtle, and inexplicable. The people going to the North Pole to conceive are the spiritual descendants of those who waited on midsummer's eve in the sacred grove. Since it's something they can't see and don't understand, it must be powerful.
This would be odd. The legal theory that allows child pornography to be banned (while adult pornography cannot) is, IIRC, (a) Posing in sexually explicit manners can psychologically damaging; (b) the odds go up for children, who haven't developed the sophistication to handle it; and (c) a child, lacking experience and maturity, cannot make an informed choice to be a porn model. NB: I'm not sure that these points are valid but I believe they are the ones offered.
If true, then an adult can certainly pretend to be a minor, since the adult (supposedly) has both the right and the capacity to make that choice.
Of course, this raises the issue of, say, CGI kiddie porn. The computer can't be psychologically scarred. Often the rationale then is, by providing this sanitized porn, one creates a market for real kiddie porn, and thus the simulation must be banned... a much weaker case, I believe. A trial involving these issues is, IIRC, wending its way through the courts.
The "remedy" phase of an anti-trust case is like the "penalty" phase of other criminal trials: It's when the punishment is meted out.
Unfortunately, in anti-trust law, there is this (IMHO absolutely insane) doctrine, that the purpose of the law is purely remedial and not at all punitive. That is, you can only use anti-trust law to "correct" for the anticompetitive behavior of a company. You can't actually punish the company.
I don't know why corporations are entitled to this wonderful exemption whereas your ordinary criminal is not, but apparently it's backed up by a hundred years of court decisions.
Sounds fair. Now, of course, I'll just stop doing any sort of work outside the contracted time. Inspirational idea in the shower? Too bad. Clever way to save the company money thought up during the commute? Guess someone else will have to think it up during approved times.
This is part of the insane attitude that one's workers are one's worst enemies. Letting people do these little things is far from bad for business. It is most likely actually good as it creates an environment where people feel invested and where they have the wild concept that maybe their employer sees them as more than "production units".
But of course that assumes there's actually value in labor, and that's anathema to the modern capitalist.
... Is email more like a letter or a phone call? It has the "look and feel" of a letter, but I would argue that most people use email more like a phone conversation: short, quick, and informal.
Of course, then, sometimes people send out long memos, or detailed documents, or whatever... Either way it's gonna be a mess.
If I called him up and said "Hey I will buy your house for 1.895 million." and he said okay... then we have a verbal contract so why would it be any different if it is in an e-mail or a hand delivered letter or by the phone.
Except that every state, I believe, requires that certain contracts -- including, most especially, real estate transactions -- to be written in order to be enforceable. You can't just verbally agree to buy a house; you have to go through the closing procedure.
The defendant is basically arguing that email is more like a phone conversation than an exchange of letters. In terms of how people view it, he might well be correct. Legally, it's less clear.
How about because spammers take up network resources and user time without being asked to, without being authorized to, and without yielding benefit? It costs a spammer essentially nothing to send an email that will consume perhaps thousands of dollars in lost bandwidth, CPU cycles, and user effort. The cost is not borne by the instigator, but by the unwilling recipient.
Let's say I decided to drop by your house every day and scrawl an ad (or an offensive message) in chalk on the sidewalk. It's easy enough to erase -- just a little water spilled over it. Is it OK, then? What if I decided to do this every day to every house in your neighborhood? What if I got the chalk by, say, dropping by the local public school and absconding with it?
And I don't know what a good anti-spam law would be, but I wish to death that people would stop acting as if it were a priori impossible to write one without somehow opening up all imaginable governmental ills. Good laws do exist, though it's fashionable on slashdot to pretend they don't. A targetted law helping to assign some economic cost to sending spam would help restore the operation of normal market forces. Not all slopes are slippery.
"Fraud" is a good word for the password analogy, but only if the password were used to fool someone. What if, instead, it were used to gain access to your system?
Maybe we need to broaden the definition of "someone". Obviously a stolen password is intended to be used to fool your system. As we move toward semi-autonomous software, we going to have to expand our concepts of identity, fraud, lying, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
While I admit that such can be the case, isn't it a tad convenient that the very "success" of the conspiracy theory mandates its essential non-falsifiability? I have a magic talisman on my keychain that keeps away elephants. How do I know it works? Well, you don't see any elephants around here...
You then have a bunch of slashdot-imposed link boxes [lanl.gov], etc., but no actual links.
The space.com article starts off with "NASA's Controversial Gravity Shield Experiment Fails to Produce" (my emphasis). They also comment "What has dogged the research, experts say, is that Podkletnov failed to adequately document his findings." This seems to be a bad habit of people proposing these sorts of exotic, revolutionary theories.
Ning Lee's proposal, which is not yet accepted anyway, isn't true antigravity. It's just another kind of motor. We can create "antigravity" by exclusion of magnetic field lines from a superconductor, in that this generates lift. Wait, wait, we can create "antigravity" by running air past a suitably shaped wing!
On the other hand, true antigravity -- say, a shielding of gravity's effects -- requires a complete change in how we perceive the laws of nature. I'm all for that, but not until you show me the peer-reviewed, well-documented, empirical evidence. I don't buy into the bullcrap conspiracy theories that act like the physicists of the world would engage in sinister collaboration to suppress wild new results. The fact is, most physicists would love to hear about easily-accessible fundamentally new physics.
But first they need proof. And so do I.
Well, that's a sweeping generalization that isn't true. Assuming by "antigravity" you mean an actual fundamental interaction, I haven't met a single "real scientist" who believes in it strongly. ("Antigravity" meaning "opposing gravity" is trivial... jump, for example.) Many believe there might be something fundamental -- for instance, a difference in how antimatter and matter couple to the gravitational field, leading antimatter to have a repulsive compoent to its gravitational interaction -- but as far as I've ever heard, no peer-reviewed paper has ever been published claiming to have seen that effect experimentally.
is that, then, you have to get everything right yourself, or you look like an idiot. Alas,
isn't so. The strong force binds nucleon to nucleon -- so p-p, n-n, and p-n are all strong interactions. IIRC (and it's been a while, so no guarantees), the weak nuclear force changes the "flavor" of heavy leptons and quarks, leading to instability. (Of course, the Standard Model has unified EM and weak into electroweak.)
I think there is a distinction here. It's not like Disney felt the chasing was wrong. They felt it might be unpopular and open to critcism. I'd bet money that their decision was prompted only by considerations of cash flow, not political philosophy.
We need a similarly pithy handle for this bill, that can be used to strip away the mind-numbing acronym.
Disney is liberal? That doesn't accord with my impression... what causes you to say that?
Well, yes and no. If by "biography" you mean the particular book (or other account of someone's life), then that is a creative work and so copyrighted. If you mean "biography" as the details of someone's life -- but not any particular rendering of these facts into, say, conversational English -- then they are facts and not copyrightable.
In other words, I can read McCullogh's book on John Adams and discover that Adam died on July 4, 1826. MuCullogh cannot sue me for copyright infringement for that statement. But if I were to copy, wholesale, the section in his book where he relays that act, he can sue me.
Anyway, my story was cooler because it included the great closing line from the article,
Aahh, what do I care? I made it into the Washington Post today!
True...
Well, Andrew Wiles will have issues with you, and most of the math community agress with him, I believe
Um, no. Fermat's Last Theorem was the statement that
has no solution where x, y, and z are all integers, if n>3.
To disprove Fermat's Theorem, all you would need to do would be to find a triplet of integers that obeys the equation above. Computers proved that for n < 12 (IIRC), there were none. But that doesn't prove the Theorem and (of course) fails to disprove it.
I think you confused the sense of the Theorem, perhaps because it is phrased negatively.
Interesting. When I tried "www.microsoft.com", I received the much more alarming
It seems to me that "fatal error" is a lot worse than a bunch of formatting tags that don't parse. Of course, this is Microsoft, where "fatal error" is better known as "standard operating procedure".
Oh, by the way, the page choked on both Opera and IE, so it's not a browser thing. And it choked on "microsoft.com", too. On the other hand, "msn.com" only produced 19 errors, of essentially the same type as "slashdot.org".
The orientation of the field doesn't really matter too much. I mean, we'd have to relabel compasses, etc., but no big deal.
But
Magnetic fields, like electric fields, are the modern equivalent of leprechauns, fairies, and demons. For the typical layperson, they are invisible, subtle, and inexplicable. The people going to the North Pole to conceive are the spiritual descendants of those who waited on midsummer's eve in the sacred grove. Since it's something they can't see and don't understand, it must be powerful.
If true, then an adult can certainly pretend to be a minor, since the adult (supposedly) has both the right and the capacity to make that choice.
Of course, this raises the issue of, say, CGI kiddie porn. The computer can't be psychologically scarred. Often the rationale then is, by providing this sanitized porn, one creates a market for real kiddie porn, and thus the simulation must be banned... a much weaker case, I believe. A trial involving these issues is, IIRC, wending its way through the courts.
Well, apparently, it was.
Unfortunately, in anti-trust law, there is this (IMHO absolutely insane) doctrine, that the purpose of the law is purely remedial and not at all punitive. That is, you can only use anti-trust law to "correct" for the anticompetitive behavior of a company. You can't actually punish the company.
I don't know why corporations are entitled to this wonderful exemption whereas your ordinary criminal is not, but apparently it's backed up by a hundred years of court decisions.
Do they block scripting on Outlook? Either way it tells you something about security and MS.
Sounds fair. Now, of course, I'll just stop doing any sort of work outside the contracted time. Inspirational idea in the shower? Too bad. Clever way to save the company money thought up during the commute? Guess someone else will have to think it up during approved times.
This is part of the insane attitude that one's workers are one's worst enemies. Letting people do these little things is far from bad for business. It is most likely actually good as it creates an environment where people feel invested and where they have the wild concept that maybe their employer sees them as more than "production units".
But of course that assumes there's actually value in labor, and that's anathema to the modern capitalist.
Of course, then, sometimes people send out long memos, or detailed documents, or whatever... Either way it's gonna be a mess.
Except that every state, I believe, requires that certain contracts -- including, most especially, real estate transactions -- to be written in order to be enforceable. You can't just verbally agree to buy a house; you have to go through the closing procedure.
The defendant is basically arguing that email is more like a phone conversation than an exchange of letters. In terms of how people view it, he might well be correct. Legally, it's less clear.
How about because spammers take up network resources and user time without being asked to, without being authorized to, and without yielding benefit? It costs a spammer essentially nothing to send an email that will consume perhaps thousands of dollars in lost bandwidth, CPU cycles, and user effort. The cost is not borne by the instigator, but by the unwilling recipient.
Let's say I decided to drop by your house every day and scrawl an ad (or an offensive message) in chalk on the sidewalk. It's easy enough to erase -- just a little water spilled over it. Is it OK, then? What if I decided to do this every day to every house in your neighborhood? What if I got the chalk by, say, dropping by the local public school and absconding with it?
And I don't know what a good anti-spam law would be, but I wish to death that people would stop acting as if it were a priori impossible to write one without somehow opening up all imaginable governmental ills. Good laws do exist, though it's fashionable on slashdot to pretend they don't. A targetted law helping to assign some economic cost to sending spam would help restore the operation of normal market forces. Not all slopes are slippery.
Maybe we need to broaden the definition of "someone". Obviously a stolen password is intended to be used to fool your system. As we move toward semi-autonomous software, we going to have to expand our concepts of identity, fraud, lying, etc.
... It opens with a scene from Buckaroo Banzai: Across the 8th Dimension . Yay.
Why, she's Commercial Telepath (Psi Rating P5) Talia Winters, of course.
That's info I didn't have. Thanks.