"Wanna see my resume? I'm looking for a summer job."
Hope you're not looking for a job in computers, but I wouldn't know because the link to your resume points to a file on your hard drive; probably behind an un-firewall enhanced firewalled system.
Or it could just be you don't have a webserver running on J:\.
yeah this is an april fools joke
on
TCP/IP Over HTTP
·
· Score: 1
QUiCK, STOP P0STING!!!
It's an April Fools Joke. The RFC was written 1, APRIL 2001. It is not written well, and it was obviously done in a hurry.
It mentions many times over that "we respect the right of people to use a firewall"; yet the RFC proposes circumventing a firewall completely at every level. It is a JOKE.
What's more is, and I'm sure somebody could argue this; but HTTP uses UDP connections. The entire TCP/IP Protocol suite requires TCP connections which are more complicated than simple UDP - using HTTP a true TCP connection is impossible.
The pranksters are probably network admins themselves, and thought it would be funny to write an RFC that claims employees on an internal network are actually smart enough to decide which of their programs are good - which is why the mention, "Best of all, no need to bother a network admin".
Would you care to elaborate oh harbringer of corporate fortune. Please elucidate us as to the many wonders of Bluetooth technology.
Is it true our devices will all speak to each other oh corporona,
Is it true we will gain true freedom through connected devices,
the freedom to order groceries automatically?
the freedom to buy stock from a toaster?
the freedom to type up a report on our computers, while sitting in front of a tv we have to shut off to focus on typing?
Oh corporona!
how you elucidate me
When, when when
I suffer
in agony....
when will your marketing dreams become my reality?
"as for the 'pixelated icon' suggestion, really, if you're going to criticize a standard, at least try to push the boundaries a smidge. vector graphics at least. even better, a token identifying both type and data of a visual."
I believe "pushing the boundaries" is the reason this project isn't working. If I personally felt like having my palm pilot connect to all devices in my house; I wouldn't want to be looking at shiny corporate graphics describing each appliance as being a Maytag, GE and colourful SONY stereo with scrolling graphics.
I would want a little box called, "light" that actually controls my light when I click on it.
Pushing the boundaries in the way you're suggesting is about as exciting and useful as "pushing the boundaries" in the artistic appeal of the buttons on your microwave; in the end - nobody cares.
And in the end, working on math routines and vector-plotting standards accross all devices would increase the weight of your Bluetooth powered watch to 6 pounds. Anything more than an absolutely simple matrix of on and off pixels isn't going to work with anything.
Companies themselves, and devlepers; looking to improve the interface to Bluetooth devices can add their own colorful icons to their display, but in the end, if the PROTOCOL isn't simple, nothing will work together.
When I first heard of Bluetooth, I thought to myself, "I don't really care about checking the status of my fridge while watching tv". After time however, I came to realize, "I don't really care about checking the status of my fridge while watching tv".
For those companies that are desperately seeking to make this all-american dream a reality, I have some advice;
4 layered transmissions
Layers:
1) Identify yourself uniquely, negotiate unique identities with devices conflicting with your identify. (IPv6 using your SN as a mac address, problem solved).
2) Negotiate Public Key Encryption if required -- using IEEE standard encryption algorithm located on chip mentioned at end of this rant.
3) Identify the number of variables people will be working with, ie: "I am a light. I go on or off. My variable is Boolean"; "I am a fridge, I have 3 variables. On/oFF ; Fridge Temperature (range 0 to -20) ; Freezer Temperature (range 0 to -20).
4) Identify how your interface will be displayed to the user. ie; send a pixilated ICON of your device, with the text to go underneath such as "Fridge #56". Identify Whether your variables are straight-listed, or listed in relation to each other such as a linked-tree.
If the device communicating with you has only text ability, then only text will be displayed. It is up to the individual device to decide exactly how the layout goes, so end-users can say, "I don't like the palm pilot Bluetooth interface". This is probably where the problem occurs, everyone wants their product to have scrolling advertisements and look better than someone elses. Yo, you're designing remote controls; get over yourselves.
Last requirement for Bluetooth to work: IEEE implements a Bluetooth RFC database and refuses to IEEE-BT certify non-compliant devices.
In addition to this, all devices wishing to become BlueTooth certified must have a flashable chip in the event of backwards incompatability. If you need to update your bluetooth protocol, you just broadcast the new protocol from any device to all surrounding devices.
I realize this sounds like security risk, since people could flash their own protocols with backdoors or cause major problems amongst the utilities in your house. However when you think about it logically you'll realize this really isn't such a big problem in light of the fact that your Stove, Cell Phone and Maybe even your furnace will all one day be connected to a worldwide WAN known as the internet.
I hope this dream becomes a reality soon, and I wish all you over-funded capitalist pigs luck when Z3ro-c00li0 shuts off your pilot-light and turns on your stove.
"My opinion is that if their site can get/.ed so easily, I don't want to buy a server from them."
You might be on to something there, on the other hand they may have pre-determined their bandwidth by the fact that they are hosted on a free-provider.
Generally prodigy engineering students are flat broke.
If this product you've been working on for 6 months is only 50 hours from completion, then I would tell the company you're 6 months ahead of developement on it; you want the rights to it, and you're willing to sell it. Tell them it's their best solution.
If you want to be sneaky, have a friend of yours register a company and tell the company you're working for that a company with the same product already exists; then split the money with your friend 90/10 and retain the rights.
In any event, if I were the owner of even a fairly large business, I would be more than happy to hear a potential solution for a client was 6 months ahead of completion; I would personally look at it as a sale you wouldn't have gotten on your own, and split the profit but not the rights with the company.
I'm guessing the situation is more complicated than that, could you explain why?
While this technology may not be new, implementing it for fairly cheap and with competition may be a step in the right direction for a number of reasons.
The competition will induce aggressive advertising strategies; getting more people and small business away from modems (those who otherwise wouldn't be swayed by the hype of only two competing 100MBs ISPs (it's two in canada)); it will allow faster communications once it is developed more (ie: transmitting varying light frequencies from the same location does not cause interference as is caused by electromagnetic waves).
I think it will also put us closer to quantum-encryption between server and client, which will improve privacy. In the long run, I envision light-based communications will take over current wire-based technology. I think we all do.
"But then that would spoil your view of evil (as you so originally put it) Amerikkka"
My comments about Evil America were actually meant to be more of a reflection of the people who can overlook their own countries massive Espionage efforts and spending to focus on a single individual who supposidly hurt their precious governments Militarily controlled world-monopoly.
Gas prices high? Start a war, and hey, while you're doing it - claim it's about babies being slaughtered, and make sure the newspapers do next to nothing save for advertising your weapons so other countries will want to buy from you.
I've got a million common-sense examples of attrocities caused and controlled by the American government. I'm not attacking the USA as a country because of them. I am attacking the USA as a country because so many of it's own citizens are ademently doing their governments cover-up jobs for them;
"Russia does it too"
"The detonation of Two nuclear bombs saved lives"
(Yet if the American government were to execute a single individual in the street for political reasons; we would all be in an uproar... until someone justified it publicly).
"Saddham Hussein was on the warpath
(and besides, gas was gonna get expensive)"
The moniker, "Amerikkka" represents more than just the globally excepted view of America as a generally racist, militaristic, and Fascist-News controlled country...
It also represents the history of America as an openly racist country which made all of its wealth and established living conditions off of the lives of slaves and natives.
Now that Americas population is so high; the standard of living close to what it originally was and Slavery has been abolished; who does Amerikkka turn to for it's wealth and labour?
Foreign 'enemies'. Crazy people like Saddham who was ripe for a nationlist moral boosting war. Sure, Saddham might be crazy; and the thing that makes us not feel guilty for our actions against him is that his military actually believed and followed his fascist orders. Our military bombed hospitals and schools by accident, and we believed for a very long time that they didn't.
Moderating my messages down for being "un-american" is as "un-american" as the American Press.
"American spies get killed in other countries for what they do, and we don't raise a diplomatic stink about it. The risks and rewards are well known on either side of the equation. It's not like those other countries don't believe the exact same way about their own country and their own way of life."
Yes but if this were a religious war, would you feel justified in your actions because the other side feels the same?
My argument is that we should analyze Espionage for what it really is. It is the opening of a chess game that always costs lives. Spies are the first pawns out; and whether or not they exist - lives are still lost because of the military, and the militaristic views of the US government.
We can not argue that this spy is costing us lives, or them lives -- if America had nothing to hide, then people would not have to die. I feel I have a right and need to know exactly what these spies are after; does the US have a much larger arsenol than we expected, paid for by taxpayers.... do they take taxpayers money and spend it on huge espionage activities themselves; only to condemn double agents performing the same duty to a different country?
Or does the US just happen to serve better martini's at their political functions? Obviously these spies are after critical information that makes up a much, much larger picture. To condemn the spy is ludicrous, why don't we find out what information he had, and see who the most villinous entity is.. the spy, or the activities which attracted him?
ps. Moderating down my messages because they are "un-american" isn't exactly American.
The rational of the bombing was intimidating the Russians by covering up Japans recent surrender.
The US doesn't create something like the Atomic Bomb, the greatest weapon known to mankind, the most expensive and greatest scientific achievement of our time -- the US would never put so much effort and pride into a weapon of such massive destruction without showing what it can really do.
"Let's see: you take carbon (coal) and oxygen (air) and run a chemical reaction to give you carbon dioxide and energy. Then you add a bacterium and light and get back (Ta Da!) carbon and oxygen."
First of all, there's nothing wrong with this equation - except that you left out the concept of losing mass to energy creation. Since so much energy is contained in mass - it makes sense that you would be able to keep converting your material back and forth and getting energy; it's just that the material shrinks a la everything else in the world, ie: not free energy.
Secondly, in any chemical reaction - there are always other compounds produced from reactions in some amount, some are completely unstable and break down into something else, some aren't... ie: you would also get, Carbon monoxide, Cyanide... and a slew of other carbon-something compounds; just in smaller amounts, so mass is lost that way.
I agree with you 100%, why not just use the solar power and not the plant - well because the solar power can not at this time be converted well into direct useable energy. In a very real way, this will utilize solar power if the recombinant carbon could be used again.
unfortunately your entire argument is flawed in that carbon in fact does not combust. To combine stable C2 with oxygen you need to actually add energy to break it apart and have it recombine with oxygen. I do believe the energy required is more than the energy gained by the fusion of C and O2. As these guys note, "the basis for most coals, is a large, carbon-based molecule that makes up 30 percent of vascular plants such as trees.". Coal is made up of carbon based molecules and not carbon itself.
This is why when you have a fire, you are left with black ash that does not burn; Carbon.
The idea for a material of this nature has been kicking around since well before the 80s, but at the time - the technology just wasn't available.
As a post-graduate working on dwindling research grants from the American, Canadian and Australian government, I can only say this breakthrough is really a great relief to both me and my team.
It is my belief that while the interest and funding for our project was thriving in the beginning - our lack of working prototype has really set us back. I can only hope this sets us in the right direction again.
The security level of many areas of our research has steadily decreased from eyes only to 'round'-filed. So I can share atleast a few examples of our failed attempts with you.
Many top brass exhibited concerns over human rights issues with our stress-tests; Combining biological matter with computer equipment and our flex-resin technology should orginally have been done with primates (They tell us now!) - but we opted for volunteers; which angered the US officials to no end. In the end, many prototypes were actually taken home by the staff and used as ashtrays
Slashdot allows people the opportunity to offer free web-hosting space. When a story is posted on slashdot, a script automatically uploads the link(s) the story refers to, to a whole slew of alternate mirror sites provided by slashdots users.
Then, a new icon appears beside the new stories which lists a link to the mirror sites. Anyone offering space can give you an account which has access to only x-amount of space.
This way, we slashdot lovers don't have to wait for 3 days to read a story, we can simply go to 1 of a hundred mirror sites when the main site has been slashdotted. Having a large number of volunteered mirror sites also ensures no one mirror site loses too much bandwidth.
RSA is cracked, but slashdot refuses to report it.
on
RSA Cracked - Not
·
· Score: 1
I've submitted a story 3 times about RSA encryption being cracked. It has been cracked using a Feed Forward Neural Network, and any RSA encrypted message up to 1024 characters can be broken using the software within 2 weeks. There is no limit to the keysize the software will handle, but currently it is optimized for 1024 bits. I have a copy of the software which was at one time hosted on my webserver and available to the general public for analysis.
As it stands, the software requires some small changes but is very close to a working copy. Email me if you want a copy, or talk to this guy.
"The only problem is when people like you wouldn't even give the thing a chance."
I don't even like Consoles in general; I just call it as I see it. Honestly, I've never liked consoles - I think PC games are always much much more entertaining; but that's a whole other thing, and besides I wouldn't argue it, I just accept I'm different from most people.
The problem was not that 'only a handful' of games were flawed, the problem was that this handful were the first games released. This meant people who dropped $300 on the console, or were thinking of spending $300 when the hype was started, and christmas was occuring - these people didn't get to play 2 player games, or buy new games for a long time after the thing was released.
What's more is, Sega has always had a very bad reputation as far as the continuity of their products go. I don't remember anymore, (but don't think I didn't know my stuff last christmas) - but their last console did horribly, and because of that, they stopped producing games for it soon after everyone bought it. Just like what's happening here.
On the other hand, the PS had announced at the same time they were coming out with a NEW console that would be just as much or more hype, *and* be backwards compatible. You tell me what to tell Mrs. Doe with 4 kids and no income to buy so she doesn't declare bankruptcy again in 1 year trying to keep her kids happy.
On top of all this, our own in-store system had broken twice. I have absolutely no favouritism at all towards any company, in fact - I usually support the little guy; but when that happens
to a new system by a company with little reputation (comparitively), I am not going to play sides because of some marketing hype they couldn't even provide for!
(our console(s) btw was never knocked around and was very well cooled and powered better than most people power their home stuff, and usually ran for less time than it would in a home!)
I'm really not knocking Sega, I know they have good intentions. But let me summarize:
1) The average person doesn't care if their system gets repaired within 2-3 weeks. If it breaks once, its a major pain in the ass compared to another system that probably wouldn't. Sega broke twice on us in a month. (That's 3 consoles we went through!). The second was from a completely different batch.
2) The system was much more expensive than the PS, and with all the hype about the PS2 - and the fact it was backwards compatible, why buy a dreamcast at that time when you knew if it failed, you would be screwed (I was right afterall! it did fail, and now you're all screwed for the future).
3) We couldn't even sell parents the stuff their kids needed to enjoy the thing (ie: 2 player compatibility!). "When are you getting the memory? the controllers? The other 50 games? (We had like 8 games at the start)" - "Sega tells us very soon"... "Sega tells us very soon"... "Sega said it would be soon about a month ago"... "I dunno it's been 3 months since Sega last told us it would be soon". Oh look they're here, the hypes dead.
Dude, I gave Sega its fair chance - and I was right, it died. You gamers are just sore losers because you want something better and Sega did not provide.
I worked at CompuCentre when the Dreamcast first came out - our in store demo had to be replaced twice because of problems with the Console itself burning out.
We got tonnes of customers around Christmas who wanted the standard items, like, an extra Controller. Sega kept promising delivery, but most of the stuff people were looking didn't show up for 4 months!
Games were released that Sega quickly found didn't actually work in the console (Something to do with the quality of the CD they printed the games on causing problems with the copy-protection scheme in the console).
People who bought the consoles despite these major flaws (And me telling them when the boss was in the back room "Don't buy this thing, it's absolute crap! it really is, seriously, don't.... ever. don't.") - well, these people showed up week after week waiting for the games scheduled for quick release; and they didn't come out on time either. By the time I left compucentre, they had all the controllers, memory packs and lots and lots of games for the Dreamcast - as well as 4 console units that never sold in 4 months because by that time - nobody wanted the damn things.
This particular store could sell 5 - 10 Playstation Consoles in a single day; which is very good for retail in a small Canadian city eh.
"They claim they will develop ethical guidelines to determine when to clone and not to clone. This assumes the scientists that develop a technology are able to limit society's use of that technology."
It also assumes that these so-called scientists who are fueled by either 1) research grants from corporations; or 2) the prospect of making huge amounts of money; are actually ethical at all, or that their ethics jive with the rest of the world which would not be making money from their monopoly on a wholly unique new field in scientific excess.
I would argue cloning for the sake of providing a child to a couple that can not have children: is not ethical at all -- If my opinion meant anything in the grand scheme of things. These so-called scientists should be arrested the day they succeed.
""The irony about it is that there are so many people that are attempting to do it, and they could be doing it even as we speak in their garages. ...
It is time for us to develop the package in a responsible manner, and make the package available to the world. I think I have faith in the world that they will handle it properly."
What this guy is saying - 'People can't be trusted to be responsible [with cloning], so we are going to jump on the bandwagon and be responsible; but don't worry about anything, because we have faith that everyone is responsible'.
If it sounds ludicrous the way I said it, then read his quotes again; he literally makes that exact catch-22 argument.
At the risk of going off topic, I would just like to apologize for the idiocy of my original message.
"Where did you get this information? MHz and Watts have no direct, mathematical link between each other. Who did your math?"
I actually didn't mean to word it as an insult, but I just recently quit smoking. 8-).
I was honestly wondering what the Eqn was. I'll be the 8th to admit I was wrong. Thanks to everyone who wrote me personally to call me a flaming retard. 8-)
"That's more that one phone for each citizen of the U.S."
Not by much, besides, the article only mentions the phones will be produced in the United States. Considering this fabrication technology would be the cheapest technology available in less than a year; it is quite possible this many units will sell worldwide.
3,000,000 Phones / 6,000,000,000 Potential Customers = 0.05%. This doesn't seem unreasonable considering their apparent new hold on the market as well as the fact that fabrication costs may be lowest in these very large blocks. We have no idea what projected sales vs. projected fabrication costs really are.
Besides, being disposable - who's to say the customers won't need to order more than one in the span of a year? 8-).
Slashdot Mirror
"Wanna see my resume? I'm looking for a summer job."
Hope you're not looking for a job in computers, but I wouldn't know because the link to your resume points to a file on your hard drive; probably behind an un-firewall enhanced firewalled system.
Or it could just be you don't have a webserver running on J:\.
QUiCK, STOP P0STING!!!
It's an April Fools Joke. The RFC was written 1, APRIL 2001. It is not written well, and it was obviously done in a hurry.
It mentions many times over that "we respect the right of people to use a firewall"; yet the RFC proposes circumventing a firewall completely at every level. It is a JOKE.
What's more is, and I'm sure somebody could argue this; but HTTP uses UDP connections. The entire TCP/IP Protocol suite requires TCP connections which are more complicated than simple UDP - using HTTP a true TCP connection is impossible.
The pranksters are probably network admins themselves, and thought it would be funny to write an RFC that claims employees on an internal network are actually smart enough to decide which of their programs are good - which is why the mention, "Best of all, no need to bother a network admin".
Just thought I'd mention it so I can start hating every idiot who posts on this one.
Would you care to elaborate oh harbringer of corporate fortune. Please elucidate us as to the many wonders of Bluetooth technology.
Is it true our devices will all speak to each other oh corporona,
Is it true we will gain true freedom through connected devices,
the freedom to order groceries automatically?
the freedom to buy stock from a toaster?
the freedom to type up a report on our computers, while sitting in front of a tv we have to shut off to focus on typing?
Oh corporona!
how you elucidate me
When, when when
I suffer
in agony....
when will your marketing dreams become my reality?
"as for the 'pixelated icon' suggestion, really, if you're going to criticize a standard, at least try to push the boundaries a smidge. vector graphics at least. even better, a token identifying both type and data of a visual."
I believe "pushing the boundaries" is the reason this project isn't working. If I personally felt like having my palm pilot connect to all devices in my house; I wouldn't want to be looking at shiny corporate graphics describing each appliance as being a Maytag, GE and colourful SONY stereo with scrolling graphics. I would want a little box called, "light" that actually controls my light when I click on it.
Pushing the boundaries in the way you're suggesting is about as exciting and useful as "pushing the boundaries" in the artistic appeal of the buttons on your microwave; in the end - nobody cares.
And in the end, working on math routines and vector-plotting standards accross all devices would increase the weight of your Bluetooth powered watch to 6 pounds. Anything more than an absolutely simple matrix of on and off pixels isn't going to work with anything.
Companies themselves, and devlepers; looking to improve the interface to Bluetooth devices can add their own colorful icons to their display, but in the end, if the PROTOCOL isn't simple, nothing will work together.
When I first heard of Bluetooth, I thought to myself, "I don't really care about checking the status of my fridge while watching tv". After time however, I came to realize, "I don't really care about checking the status of my fridge while watching tv".
For those companies that are desperately seeking to make this all-american dream a reality, I have some advice;
4 layered transmissions
Layers:
1) Identify yourself uniquely, negotiate unique identities with devices conflicting with your identify. (IPv6 using your SN as a mac address, problem solved).
2) Negotiate Public Key Encryption if required -- using IEEE standard encryption algorithm located on chip mentioned at end of this rant.
3) Identify the number of variables people will be working with, ie: "I am a light. I go on or off. My variable is Boolean"; "I am a fridge, I have 3 variables. On/oFF ; Fridge Temperature (range 0 to -20) ; Freezer Temperature (range 0 to -20).
4) Identify how your interface will be displayed to the user. ie; send a pixilated ICON of your device, with the text to go underneath such as "Fridge #56". Identify Whether your variables are straight-listed, or listed in relation to each other such as a linked-tree.
If the device communicating with you has only text ability, then only text will be displayed. It is up to the individual device to decide exactly how the layout goes, so end-users can say, "I don't like the palm pilot Bluetooth interface". This is probably where the problem occurs, everyone wants their product to have scrolling advertisements and look better than someone elses. Yo, you're designing remote controls; get over yourselves.
Last requirement for Bluetooth to work: IEEE implements a Bluetooth RFC database and refuses to IEEE-BT certify non-compliant devices.
In addition to this, all devices wishing to become BlueTooth certified must have a flashable chip in the event of backwards incompatability. If you need to update your bluetooth protocol, you just broadcast the new protocol from any device to all surrounding devices.
I realize this sounds like security risk, since people could flash their own protocols with backdoors or cause major problems amongst the utilities in your house. However when you think about it logically you'll realize this really isn't such a big problem in light of the fact that your Stove, Cell Phone and Maybe even your furnace will all one day be connected to a worldwide WAN known as the internet.
I hope this dream becomes a reality soon, and I wish all you over-funded capitalist pigs luck when Z3ro-c00li0 shuts off your pilot-light and turns on your stove.
"My opinion is that if their site can get /.ed so easily, I don't want to buy a server from them."
You might be on to something there, on the other hand they may have pre-determined their bandwidth by the fact that they are hosted on a free-provider.
Generally prodigy engineering students are flat broke.
Since this idea is so easy to circumvent, I sure hope they don't get rid of the CDR tax ideas they've implemented.
I can't wait to pay tax for CD's I haven't illegally copied, and not be able to copy CD's I have a right to copy.
I'm sorry, did that sound sarcastic?
If this product you've been working on for 6 months is only 50 hours from completion, then I would tell the company you're 6 months ahead of developement on it; you want the rights to it, and you're willing to sell it. Tell them it's their best solution.
If you want to be sneaky, have a friend of yours register a company and tell the company you're working for that a company with the same product already exists; then split the money with your friend 90/10 and retain the rights.
In any event, if I were the owner of even a fairly large business, I would be more than happy to hear a potential solution for a client was 6 months ahead of completion; I would personally look at it as a sale you wouldn't have gotten on your own, and split the profit but not the rights with the company.
I'm guessing the situation is more complicated than that, could you explain why?
While this technology may not be new, implementing it for fairly cheap and with competition may be a step in the right direction for a number of reasons.
The competition will induce aggressive advertising strategies; getting more people and small business away from modems (those who otherwise wouldn't be swayed by the hype of only two competing 100MBs ISPs (it's two in canada)); it will allow faster communications once it is developed more (ie: transmitting varying light frequencies from the same location does not cause interference as is caused by electromagnetic waves).
I think it will also put us closer to quantum-encryption between server and client, which will improve privacy. In the long run, I envision light-based communications will take over current wire-based technology. I think we all do.
This guy is a marketing genius, $99 and, "Besides, he adds: "This stuff is already floating around on the Internet anyway,"
"Stop listening to what others say. Think for yourself."
That seems a little ignorant.
Many reasons why the bomb should not have been dropped... unless of course, you don't plan to listen.
"But then that would spoil your view of evil (as you so originally put it) Amerikkka"
My comments about Evil America were actually meant to be more of a reflection of the people who can overlook their own countries massive Espionage efforts and spending to focus on a single individual who supposidly hurt their precious governments Militarily controlled world-monopoly.
Gas prices high? Start a war, and hey, while you're doing it - claim it's about babies being slaughtered, and make sure the newspapers do next to nothing save for advertising your weapons so other countries will want to buy from you.
I've got a million common-sense examples of attrocities caused and controlled by the American government. I'm not attacking the USA as a country because of them. I am attacking the USA as a country because so many of it's own citizens are ademently doing their governments cover-up jobs for them;
"Russia does it too"
"The detonation of Two nuclear bombs saved lives"
(Yet if the American government were to execute a single individual in the street for political reasons; we would all be in an uproar... until someone justified it publicly).
"Saddham Hussein was on the warpath
(and besides, gas was gonna get expensive)"
The moniker, "Amerikkka" represents more than just the globally excepted view of America as a generally racist, militaristic, and Fascist-News controlled country...
It also represents the history of America as an openly racist country which made all of its wealth and established living conditions off of the lives of slaves and natives.
Now that Americas population is so high; the standard of living close to what it originally was and Slavery has been abolished; who does Amerikkka turn to for it's wealth and labour?
Foreign 'enemies'. Crazy people like Saddham who was ripe for a nationlist moral boosting war. Sure, Saddham might be crazy; and the thing that makes us not feel guilty for our actions against him is that his military actually believed and followed his fascist orders. Our military bombed hospitals and schools by accident, and we believed for a very long time that they didn't.
Moderating my messages down for being "un-american" is as "un-american" as the American Press.
"American spies get killed in other countries for what they do, and we don't raise a diplomatic stink about it. The risks and rewards are well known on either side of the equation. It's not like those other countries don't believe the exact same way about their own country and their own way of life."
Yes but if this were a religious war, would you feel justified in your actions because the other side feels the same?
My argument is that we should analyze Espionage for what it really is. It is the opening of a chess game that always costs lives. Spies are the first pawns out; and whether or not they exist - lives are still lost because of the military, and the militaristic views of the US government.
We can not argue that this spy is costing us lives, or them lives -- if America had nothing to hide, then people would not have to die. I feel I have a right and need to know exactly what these spies are after; does the US have a much larger arsenol than we expected, paid for by taxpayers.... do they take taxpayers money and spend it on huge espionage activities themselves; only to condemn double agents performing the same duty to a different country?
Or does the US just happen to serve better martini's at their political functions? Obviously these spies are after critical information that makes up a much, much larger picture. To condemn the spy is ludicrous, why don't we find out what information he had, and see who the most villinous entity is.. the spy, or the activities which attracted him?
ps. Moderating down my messages because they are "un-american" isn't exactly American.
The rational of the bombing was intimidating the Russians by covering up Japans recent surrender.
The US doesn't create something like the Atomic Bomb, the greatest weapon known to mankind, the most expensive and greatest scientific achievement of our time -- the US would never put so much effort and pride into a weapon of such massive destruction without showing what it can really do.
"Let's see: you take carbon (coal) and oxygen (air) and run a chemical reaction to give you carbon dioxide and energy. Then you add a bacterium and light and get back (Ta Da!) carbon and oxygen."
First of all, there's nothing wrong with this equation - except that you left out the concept of losing mass to energy creation. Since so much energy is contained in mass - it makes sense that you would be able to keep converting your material back and forth and getting energy; it's just that the material shrinks a la everything else in the world, ie: not free energy.
Secondly, in any chemical reaction - there are always other compounds produced from reactions in some amount, some are completely unstable and break down into something else, some aren't... ie: you would also get, Carbon monoxide, Cyanide... and a slew of other carbon-something compounds; just in smaller amounts, so mass is lost that way.
I agree with you 100%, why not just use the solar power and not the plant - well because the solar power can not at this time be converted well into direct useable energy. In a very real way, this will utilize solar power if the recombinant carbon could be used again.
unfortunately your entire argument is flawed in that carbon in fact does not combust. To combine stable C2 with oxygen you need to actually add energy to break it apart and have it recombine with oxygen. I do believe the energy required is more than the energy gained by the fusion of C and O2. As these guys note, "the basis for most coals, is a large, carbon-based molecule that makes up 30 percent of vascular plants such as trees.". Coal is made up of carbon based molecules and not carbon itself.
This is why when you have a fire, you are left with black ash that does not burn; Carbon.
As a post-graduate working on dwindling research grants from the American, Canadian and Australian government, I can only say this breakthrough is really a great relief to both me and my team.
It is my belief that while the interest and funding for our project was thriving in the beginning - our lack of working prototype has really set us back. I can only hope this sets us in the right direction again.
The security level of many areas of our research has steadily decreased from eyes only to 'round'-filed. So I can share atleast a few examples of our failed attempts with you.
But failed almost every stress test:
Many top brass exhibited concerns over human rights issues with our stress-tests; Combining biological matter with computer equipment and our flex-resin technology should orginally have been done with primates (They tell us now!) - but we opted for volunteers; which angered the US officials to no end. In the end, many prototypes were actually taken home by the staff and used as ashtrays
As Cowboy Neal, what do you think of this idea:
Slashdot allows people the opportunity to offer free web-hosting space. When a story is posted on slashdot, a script automatically uploads the link(s) the story refers to, to a whole slew of alternate mirror sites provided by slashdots users.
Then, a new icon appears beside the new stories which lists a link to the mirror sites. Anyone offering space can give you an account which has access to only x-amount of space.
This way, we slashdot lovers don't have to wait for 3 days to read a story, we can simply go to 1 of a hundred mirror sites when the main site has been slashdotted. Having a large number of volunteered mirror sites also ensures no one mirror site loses too much bandwidth.
I've submitted a story 3 times about RSA encryption being cracked. It has been cracked using a Feed Forward Neural Network, and any RSA encrypted message up to 1024 characters can be broken using the software within 2 weeks. There is no limit to the keysize the software will handle, but currently it is optimized for 1024 bits. I have a copy of the software which was at one time hosted on my webserver and available to the general public for analysis.
As it stands, the software requires some small changes but is very close to a working copy. Email me if you want a copy, or talk to this guy.
If the 100 km asteroid was to collide with the Earth then it would wipe out all life on our planet.
If the 100 km asteroid was to collide with the Earth then it would wipe out all life on our planet.
If the 100 km asteroid was to collide with the Earth then it would wipe out all life on our planet.
If the 100 km asteroid was to collide with the Earth then it would wipe out all life on our planet.
"This danger cannot be overemphasised," the researchers stress.
"The only problem is when people like you wouldn't even give the thing a chance."
I don't even like Consoles in general; I just call it as I see it. Honestly, I've never liked consoles - I think PC games are always much much more entertaining; but that's a whole other thing, and besides I wouldn't argue it, I just accept I'm different from most people.
The problem was not that 'only a handful' of games were flawed, the problem was that this handful were the first games released. This meant people who dropped $300 on the console, or were thinking of spending $300 when the hype was started, and christmas was occuring - these people didn't get to play 2 player games, or buy new games for a long time after the thing was released.
What's more is, Sega has always had a very bad reputation as far as the continuity of their products go. I don't remember anymore, (but don't think I didn't know my stuff last christmas) - but their last console did horribly, and because of that, they stopped producing games for it soon after everyone bought it. Just like what's happening here.
On the other hand, the PS had announced at the same time they were coming out with a NEW console that would be just as much or more hype, *and* be backwards compatible. You tell me what to tell Mrs. Doe with 4 kids and no income to buy so she doesn't declare bankruptcy again in 1 year trying to keep her kids happy.
On top of all this, our own in-store system had broken twice. I have absolutely no favouritism at all towards any company, in fact - I usually support the little guy; but when that happens to a new system by a company with little reputation (comparitively), I am not going to play sides because of some marketing hype they couldn't even provide for!
(our console(s) btw was never knocked around and was very well cooled and powered better than most people power their home stuff, and usually ran for less time than it would in a home!)
I'm really not knocking Sega, I know they have good intentions. But let me summarize:
1) The average person doesn't care if their system gets repaired within 2-3 weeks. If it breaks once, its a major pain in the ass compared to another system that probably wouldn't. Sega broke twice on us in a month. (That's 3 consoles we went through!). The second was from a completely different batch.
2) The system was much more expensive than the PS, and with all the hype about the PS2 - and the fact it was backwards compatible, why buy a dreamcast at that time when you knew if it failed, you would be screwed (I was right afterall! it did fail, and now you're all screwed for the future).
3) We couldn't even sell parents the stuff their kids needed to enjoy the thing (ie: 2 player compatibility!). "When are you getting the memory? the controllers? The other 50 games? (We had like 8 games at the start)" - "Sega tells us very soon"... "Sega tells us very soon"... "Sega said it would be soon about a month ago"... "I dunno it's been 3 months since Sega last told us it would be soon". Oh look they're here, the hypes dead.
Dude, I gave Sega its fair chance - and I was right, it died. You gamers are just sore losers because you want something better and Sega did not provide.
I worked at CompuCentre when the Dreamcast first came out - our in store demo had to be replaced twice because of problems with the Console itself burning out.
We got tonnes of customers around Christmas who wanted the standard items, like, an extra Controller. Sega kept promising delivery, but most of the stuff people were looking didn't show up for 4 months!
Games were released that Sega quickly found didn't actually work in the console (Something to do with the quality of the CD they printed the games on causing problems with the copy-protection scheme in the console).
People who bought the consoles despite these major flaws (And me telling them when the boss was in the back room "Don't buy this thing, it's absolute crap! it really is, seriously, don't.... ever. don't.") - well, these people showed up week after week waiting for the games scheduled for quick release; and they didn't come out on time either. By the time I left compucentre, they had all the controllers, memory packs and lots and lots of games for the Dreamcast - as well as 4 console units that never sold in 4 months because by that time - nobody wanted the damn things.
This particular store could sell 5 - 10 Playstation Consoles in a single day; which is very good for retail in a small Canadian city eh.
"They claim they will develop ethical guidelines to determine when to clone and not to clone. This assumes the scientists that develop a technology are able to limit society's use of that technology."
...
It also assumes that these so-called scientists who are fueled by either 1) research grants from corporations; or 2) the prospect of making huge amounts of money; are actually ethical at all, or that their ethics jive with the rest of the world which would not be making money from their monopoly on a wholly unique new field in scientific excess.
I would argue cloning for the sake of providing a child to a couple that can not have children: is not ethical at all -- If my opinion meant anything in the grand scheme of things. These so-called scientists should be arrested the day they succeed.
""The irony about it is that there are so many people that are attempting to do it, and they could be doing it even as we speak in their garages.
It is time for us to develop the package in a responsible manner, and make the package available to the world. I think I have faith in the world that they will handle it properly."
What this guy is saying - 'People can't be trusted to be responsible [with cloning], so we are going to jump on the bandwagon and be responsible; but don't worry about anything, because we have faith that everyone is responsible'.
If it sounds ludicrous the way I said it, then read his quotes again; he literally makes that exact catch-22 argument.
At the risk of going off topic, I would just like to apologize for the idiocy of my original message.
"Where did you get this information? MHz and Watts have no direct, mathematical link between each other. Who did your math?"
I actually didn't mean to word it as an insult, but I just recently quit smoking. 8-).
I was honestly wondering what the Eqn was. I'll be the 8th to admit I was wrong. Thanks to everyone who wrote me personally to call me a flaming retard. 8-)
"To get below 1 watt, they have to drop the speed of a PIII to just 300 MHz."
Where did you get this information? MHz and Watts have no direct, mathematical link between each other. Who did your math?
My calculation for a standard 300Mhz processor is way over 1 watt, at 14.3 Watts.
P=VI; 4.33A (Socket 5) * 3.3V = 14.289Watts
"That's more that one phone for each citizen of the U.S."
Not by much, besides, the article only mentions the phones will be produced in the United States. Considering this fabrication technology would be the cheapest technology available in less than a year; it is quite possible this many units will sell worldwide.
3,000,000 Phones / 6,000,000,000 Potential Customers = 0.05%. This doesn't seem unreasonable considering their apparent new hold on the market as well as the fact that fabrication costs may be lowest in these very large blocks. We have no idea what projected sales vs. projected fabrication costs really are.
Besides, being disposable - who's to say the customers won't need to order more than one in the span of a year? 8-).