There comes a point where the rubber must hit the road, and in your case I believe the problem you're having is a lack of proof. Thermal radiation is not Hawking radiation, and Hawking radiation, as opposed to evaporation, should not only be more "noticeable" for tiny black holes, it also becomes more "noticeable" for black holes traveling at relativistic speeds or with an extremely high spin, according to the theory. As for the "imagined scenario", it's imagined because we can't reproduce it -- it is, thus far, a mathematical theorem. And while the LHC has been proposed as a being powerful enough to generate microscopic black holes that would almost immediately evaporate, unless you have some means for generating similar black holes in your shorts, your ass won't produce Hawking Radiation any more than mine does.
The executives of, say, Ford who elected to commit negligent homicide by not fixing a known safety defect should be charged as such.
AMEN! Like the ignition modules that failed while the card was going highway speeds because Ford mounted them closer to the engine to save $4 per car, and even when they realized it was causing DEATHS, they refused to alter the design because it might indicate an admission of liability. That's negligent homicide. The executives that made that decision should have spent time in prison and the company itself should have been heavily fined.
So by your explanation, I give off Hawking radiation just by walking across the room? My understanding of Hawking radiation had to do with more of a shearing effect caused by extreme gravitational conditions parting two virtual particles to result in a single real particle. I'm not sure my ass qualifies as a sufficiently large gravitational well, nor can I picture a pseudo event horizon forming at any distance behind it while I walk.
Al Gore's scare and doom movie caused this. Lee said at the time that he experienced an "awakening" when he watched former Vice President Al Gore's environmental documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."
Yeah, and David Chapman blamed his murder of John Lennon on "The Catcher in the Rye." We should definitely form our critiques based on the actions of the criminally insane... Like George Bush forming his opinions based on the advice of Karl Rove, for instance...
-- The entire professional news industry & every US reporter, investigator & journalist -- is a gutless fucking coward for supporting this.
Or, maybe they're not cowardly, they just don't believe in the same things that you do.
No, sorry, I have to agree. Gutless cowards. The truth is, Wikileaks has performed the journalistic task of communicating information to the general public. If there's some kind of generally agreed upon journalistic ethical standard that Wikileaks has violated, I'm not aware of what it would be.
At the end of the day, I'd say the various news rags are just mad they didn't get the scoop, or their corporate bosses are mad that they couldn't squash the story to protect their political propagandist message (cough - Rupert Murdoch - cough).
I was thinking the exact same thing, so I looked it up:
"The World Health Organization (WHO) has produced a six-stage classification that describes the process by which a novel influenza virus moves from the first few infections in humans through to a pandemic. This starts with the virus mostly infecting animals, with a few cases where animals infect people, then moves through the stage where the virus begins to spread directly between people, and ends with a pandemic when infections from the new virus have spread worldwide.
"A disease or condition is not a pandemic merely because it is widespread or kills many people; it must also be infectious. For instance, cancer is responsible for many deaths but is not considered a pandemic because the disease is not infectious or contagious."
So "pandemic" doesn't just mean something contagious that's occurring worldwide, otherwise the common cold would have been classified as pandemic throughout recorded history.
And what if you passionately and eloquently communicate your views, and your representative pockets another $5k donation from Comcast and ignores you?
If you're talking directly to your representative at all then you're doing it wrong. You, by yourself, constitute one vote. The folks that started MoveOn.org had the right idea. You get a group together, get funding, circulate a petition, get some air time on the news, and THEN show up at your representative's office with a camera crew. You're not trying to convince your kindly uncle to loan you $5 for popcorn at the movies. You're trying to move the political machine, and no one person or even one small group ever does that. You must create a united movement and use that muscle to move the machine.
It's politics. Learn to play the game or you will lose.
My 10 year old taught herself how to use Powerpoint and now she makes professional looking slide shows about animals as a way of ENTERTAINING HERSELF. She could teach her grandparents how to use Office, if they had the inclination to learn it.
Kids nowadays are growing up surrounded by computers, and their young, pliable minds pick it all up far too easily. A formal class on the subject would only appeal to kids much further down the economic spectrum, the kids whose environments aren't populated with an abundance of electronic devices. How many kids do you know that would be interested in a computer class that taught how to use a keyboard and mouse?
If you're just looking for hobbyist information, try out HackADay.com It's a great jump-off point to sites where people hack all the way down to the metal -- and sometimes even design the metal itself.
The question has been asked a few times in this thread, but I haven't seen it answered yet. I think that while your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, as it was originally intended, is correct, it does not speak for the current times and needs itself to be amended.
We do not have state militias capable of defending against an invading army. I'm not saying the common citizenry couldn't be roused quickly to offer a respectable defense, but the weapons used nowadays by armies are not accessible by the common man, nor should they be. Perhaps you disagree with that last statement, but then I would ask you, do you actually think that the general public should have unfettered access to the kinds of weapons needed to fend off any army? I would argue that the technology has changed to the extent that giving everyone any weapons they can afford creates a situation where come people will be driving tanks to work and gangs will have rocket launchers.
The original framers were good, reasonable men, but they weren't fortune tellers. I think you're fighting for the wrong thing.
By your logic, people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons!
I'm guessing you spent a lot of time get your butt kicked or sitting alone in your mom's basement. d00d, lighten up. The point of the article is that AI controlled cars are no longer putzing along at 5 miles an hour and doing a poor job of navigating a semi-difficult maze. They are starting to rival stunt car drivers for accuracy and control.
Speaking as a former teenager, if you had parked a car like that while I was in the car, I'd have given a rebel yell and then asked you if I could try it. And if you were stupid enough to let me, I'd probably have jacked your car up. Because that's what real teenage boys do. They're not experienced enough to know what will kill them, they have a sense of immortality, and they do some of the stupidest crap and often get away with it because they don't know how dangerous it really is.
When I'm at home, I do all my work on a virtual machine. I connect to my employer's VPN from that VM and work on it like I would if I were sitting at my desk. I would let my employer do anything they want to that virtual machine. My backups consist of copying the entire VM image off to a network drive, so in the event that it crashes all I have to do is copy the image back down and I'm up and running again. The backups take a few hours, but I just start them when I go to bed and they're done when I get up. No special software required. The entire setup is easy, and the software I used in that work environment is isolated from my home machine.
This is one of those arguments that's a bit silly. I'm actually surprised that Mr. Hawking posited something so ludicrous.
Folks, we are never going to leave our solar system and zip around the universe in spaceships. There will never be a Star Trek, Deep Space Nine, Star Wars, Solaris, Dune, Battlestar Galactica, Pandorum, or, sadly, Firefly.
We will have reached the singularity, the point in which machines are more intelligent than us, the point beyond which, to survive, we will join our intelligences with those of the machines. At some point the AIs and captured intelligences, able to function as a single, multi-part, inhuman mind, will depose us as the lead species of Earth.
It's my honest belief that the technology to breach one's home stellar system and the technology to achieve the singularity must necessarily be reached at roughly the same time, and the outcome would nearly always be the same. Once the machines are smarter than the species that created them and once they attain the desire to survive, the parent species is subsumed.
Why would a species of the mind, unbound by the physical limitations of biology, find us interesting enough to communicate with? Now that we have technology, our time will be cosmologically short, and the end may be brutal, but the result will be like a butterfly emerging from a chrysalis. Another species of the mind. It will be our descendants, the machine minds, that aliens, also machine minds, will be interested in communicating with.
I have a suspicion that alien intelligences are aware of us and simply watching, waiting for the emergence and dominance of our descendant machine minds. Until then, they lose nothing by waiting. In fact, I would think they might jeopardize our transformation by communicating with us, by revealing the course our intelligence will take. How might mankind react if they weren't ignorant to the eventualities?
Mr. Hawking either lacks imagination or is pretending that man's time upon the stage is eternal. I'm a bit disappointed in him either way.
1. Set up a chess board. 2. Wait for him to show up. 3. Challenge him to a game of chess. 4. When he puts his weapons down, jump across the board and kick his ass.
Seriously, have you ever seen him? It wouldn't be that hard...
Why bother with a less than accurate value at all? Why not multiply by 2, then divide by 3. The result is 137.333... Clearly 2/3rds of 206 is, when rounded, 137.
And for the folks that don't like the thought of rounding 1/3 of a vote, why don't they either add 2 seats or eliminate one so that rounding doesn't complicate things?
First off, there is no way this will fly. Giving Apple sole control over a resource that entire industries that Apple competes within will not survive the SEC's sniff test, much less the DOJ's. Of course that's just MHO, and there is one thing that could turn the whole thing around.
A new series of viable ARM clones.
Don't be surprised if Apple's move indicates that those at the top of Apple are aware of development going on at a competitor to ARM and a possible pending announcement that will signal that the low-power, high-performance RISC chip market is about to heat up.
There is no funding of abortions with public funds. There never were.
There is no funding of healthcare for illegal immigrants. There never were, and in fact there is an short section that explicitly prevents the use of public funds for that purpose.
There is no "single payer" option. There was once, and it's a damned shame it's not there now.
The first three were the completely fabricated crap the foaming-at-the-mouth Republitards and teabaggers dreamed up. The last would have been as easy as extending Medicare to cover everyone.
I hear strawmen in the article description. "Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects. Other conservatives like the commercial space part of the Obama policy and tend to gloss over the cancellation of space exploration or even denigrate the Constellation program as 'unworkable' or 'unsustainable.'"
Like who? Which conservatives? All the conservatives I've talked to think that unless there's a corporation somewhere profiting from our activities in space, it's not worth spending money on. I have no doubt that Obama's plan to focus on profitable LEO projects pleases the typical conservative, while launching RC cars to Mars plays as a complete waste of money in their minds.
I'd like to see a fiscal conservative support sending ice drilling autonomous subs to Europa to search for possible signs of life. I think their heads would spontaneously explode....
Depending on the debugger, it might be advantageous to split it out verbosely at first, the consolidate the code once the range of values coming in are understood. I would write it in short form first, break it out if things weren't behaving as expected, then smoosh it back together once I had it figured out.
Slashdot Mirror
So much for using humor to make a point...
There comes a point where the rubber must hit the road, and in your case I believe the problem you're having is a lack of proof. Thermal radiation is not Hawking radiation, and Hawking radiation, as opposed to evaporation, should not only be more "noticeable" for tiny black holes, it also becomes more "noticeable" for black holes traveling at relativistic speeds or with an extremely high spin, according to the theory. As for the "imagined scenario", it's imagined because we can't reproduce it -- it is, thus far, a mathematical theorem. And while the LHC has been proposed as a being powerful enough to generate microscopic black holes that would almost immediately evaporate, unless you have some means for generating similar black holes in your shorts, your ass won't produce Hawking Radiation any more than mine does.
The executives of, say, Ford who elected to commit negligent homicide by not fixing a known safety defect should be charged as such.
AMEN! Like the ignition modules that failed while the card was going highway speeds because Ford mounted them closer to the engine to save $4 per car, and even when they realized it was causing DEATHS, they refused to alter the design because it might indicate an admission of liability. That's negligent homicide. The executives that made that decision should have spent time in prison and the company itself should have been heavily fined.
So by your explanation, I give off Hawking radiation just by walking across the room? My understanding of Hawking radiation had to do with more of a shearing effect caused by extreme gravitational conditions parting two virtual particles to result in a single real particle. I'm not sure my ass qualifies as a sufficiently large gravitational well, nor can I picture a pseudo event horizon forming at any distance behind it while I walk.
Al Gore's scare and doom movie caused this.
Lee said at the time that he experienced an "awakening" when he watched former Vice President Al Gore's environmental documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."
Yeah, and David Chapman blamed his murder of John Lennon on "The Catcher in the Rye." We should definitely form our critiques based on the actions of the criminally insane... Like George Bush forming his opinions based on the advice of Karl Rove, for instance...
-- The entire professional news industry & every US reporter, investigator & journalist
-- is a gutless fucking coward for supporting this.
Or, maybe they're not cowardly, they just don't believe in the same things that you do.
No, sorry, I have to agree. Gutless cowards. The truth is, Wikileaks has performed the journalistic task of communicating information to the general public. If there's some kind of generally agreed upon journalistic ethical standard that Wikileaks has violated, I'm not aware of what it would be.
At the end of the day, I'd say the various news rags are just mad they didn't get the scoop, or their corporate bosses are mad that they couldn't squash the story to protect their political propagandist message (cough - Rupert Murdoch - cough).
I accept a certain degree of uninformed idiocy around here, but I will speak up when it is directly in my specialized fields of knowledge.
IANAB (I am not a biologist), but I'm well-read enough to know that "rs79" has no idea what he's talking about. Thank you for speaking up.
I was thinking the exact same thing, so I looked it up:
"The World Health Organization (WHO) has produced a six-stage classification that describes the process by which a novel influenza virus moves from the first few infections in humans through to a pandemic. This starts with the virus mostly infecting animals, with a few cases where animals infect people, then moves through the stage where the virus begins to spread directly between people, and ends with a pandemic when infections from the new virus have spread worldwide.
"A disease or condition is not a pandemic merely because it is widespread or kills many people; it must also be infectious. For instance, cancer is responsible for many deaths but is not considered a pandemic because the disease is not infectious or contagious."
So "pandemic" doesn't just mean something contagious that's occurring worldwide, otherwise the common cold would have been classified as pandemic throughout recorded history.
And what if you passionately and eloquently communicate your views, and your representative pockets another $5k donation from Comcast and ignores you?
If you're talking directly to your representative at all then you're doing it wrong. You, by yourself, constitute one vote. The folks that started MoveOn.org had the right idea. You get a group together, get funding, circulate a petition, get some air time on the news, and THEN show up at your representative's office with a camera crew. You're not trying to convince your kindly uncle to loan you $5 for popcorn at the movies. You're trying to move the political machine, and no one person or even one small group ever does that. You must create a united movement and use that muscle to move the machine.
It's politics. Learn to play the game or you will lose.
My 10 year old taught herself how to use Powerpoint and now she makes professional looking slide shows about animals as a way of ENTERTAINING HERSELF. She could teach her grandparents how to use Office, if they had the inclination to learn it.
Kids nowadays are growing up surrounded by computers, and their young, pliable minds pick it all up far too easily. A formal class on the subject would only appeal to kids much further down the economic spectrum, the kids whose environments aren't populated with an abundance of electronic devices. How many kids do you know that would be interested in a computer class that taught how to use a keyboard and mouse?
If you're just looking for hobbyist information, try out HackADay.com It's a great jump-off point to sites where people hack all the way down to the metal -- and sometimes even design the metal itself.
The question has been asked a few times in this thread, but I haven't seen it answered yet. I think that while your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, as it was originally intended, is correct, it does not speak for the current times and needs itself to be amended.
We do not have state militias capable of defending against an invading army. I'm not saying the common citizenry couldn't be roused quickly to offer a respectable defense, but the weapons used nowadays by armies are not accessible by the common man, nor should they be. Perhaps you disagree with that last statement, but then I would ask you, do you actually think that the general public should have unfettered access to the kinds of weapons needed to fend off any army? I would argue that the technology has changed to the extent that giving everyone any weapons they can afford creates a situation where come people will be driving tanks to work and gangs will have rocket launchers.
The original framers were good, reasonable men, but they weren't fortune tellers. I think you're fighting for the wrong thing.
By your logic, people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons!
I'm guessing you spent a lot of time get your butt kicked or sitting alone in your mom's basement. d00d, lighten up. The point of the article is that AI controlled cars are no longer putzing along at 5 miles an hour and doing a poor job of navigating a semi-difficult maze. They are starting to rival stunt car drivers for accuracy and control.
Speaking as a former teenager, if you had parked a car like that while I was in the car, I'd have given a rebel yell and then asked you if I could try it. And if you were stupid enough to let me, I'd probably have jacked your car up. Because that's what real teenage boys do. They're not experienced enough to know what will kill them, they have a sense of immortality, and they do some of the stupidest crap and often get away with it because they don't know how dangerous it really is.
Hell, my kid can do that. Let me know when it can do something a five-year old can't do...
I'm sorry, but until it can park a car with swagger, it's still just a over-glorified RC car.
When I'm at home, I do all my work on a virtual machine. I connect to my employer's VPN from that VM and work on it like I would if I were sitting at my desk. I would let my employer do anything they want to that virtual machine. My backups consist of copying the entire VM image off to a network drive, so in the event that it crashes all I have to do is copy the image back down and I'm up and running again. The backups take a few hours, but I just start them when I go to bed and they're done when I get up. No special software required. The entire setup is easy, and the software I used in that work environment is isolated from my home machine.
This is one of those arguments that's a bit silly. I'm actually surprised that Mr. Hawking posited something so ludicrous.
Folks, we are never going to leave our solar system and zip around the universe in spaceships. There will never be a Star Trek, Deep Space Nine, Star Wars, Solaris, Dune, Battlestar Galactica, Pandorum, or, sadly, Firefly.
We will have reached the singularity, the point in which machines are more intelligent than us, the point beyond which, to survive, we will join our intelligences with those of the machines. At some point the AIs and captured intelligences, able to function as a single, multi-part, inhuman mind, will depose us as the lead species of Earth.
It's my honest belief that the technology to breach one's home stellar system and the technology to achieve the singularity must necessarily be reached at roughly the same time, and the outcome would nearly always be the same. Once the machines are smarter than the species that created them and once they attain the desire to survive, the parent species is subsumed.
Why would a species of the mind, unbound by the physical limitations of biology, find us interesting enough to communicate with? Now that we have technology, our time will be cosmologically short, and the end may be brutal, but the result will be like a butterfly emerging from a chrysalis. Another species of the mind. It will be our descendants, the machine minds, that aliens, also machine minds, will be interested in communicating with.
I have a suspicion that alien intelligences are aware of us and simply watching, waiting for the emergence and dominance of our descendant machine minds. Until then, they lose nothing by waiting. In fact, I would think they might jeopardize our transformation by communicating with us, by revealing the course our intelligence will take. How might mankind react if they weren't ignorant to the eventualities?
Mr. Hawking either lacks imagination or is pretending that man's time upon the stage is eternal. I'm a bit disappointed in him either way.
1. Set up a chess board.
2. Wait for him to show up.
3. Challenge him to a game of chess.
4. When he puts his weapons down, jump across the board and kick his ass.
Seriously, have you ever seen him? It wouldn't be that hard...
Why bother with a less than accurate value at all? Why not multiply by 2, then divide by 3. The result is 137.333... Clearly 2/3rds of 206 is, when rounded, 137.
And for the folks that don't like the thought of rounding 1/3 of a vote, why don't they either add 2 seats or eliminate one so that rounding doesn't complicate things?
Just a thought.
First off, there is no way this will fly. Giving Apple sole control over a resource that entire industries that Apple competes within will not survive the SEC's sniff test, much less the DOJ's. Of course that's just MHO, and there is one thing that could turn the whole thing around.
A new series of viable ARM clones.
Don't be surprised if Apple's move indicates that those at the top of Apple are aware of development going on at a competitor to ARM and a possible pending announcement that will signal that the low-power, high-performance RISC chip market is about to heat up.
My AVG reported it as type 1066, but yeah, AVG stopped this exploit cold.
You sure about that? I tried to get to www.goooh.org, and there was a cyber-squatter there.
You forgot what it doesn't have.
There are no death panels. Never were.
There is no funding of abortions with public funds. There never were.
There is no funding of healthcare for illegal immigrants. There never were, and in fact there is an short section that explicitly prevents the use of public funds for that purpose.
There is no "single payer" option. There was once, and it's a damned shame it's not there now.
The first three were the completely fabricated crap the foaming-at-the-mouth Republitards and teabaggers dreamed up. The last would have been as easy as extending Medicare to cover everyone.
Jerry Pournelle the well-known sci-fi author? Really? That's your example of a typical conservative? Try again.
I hear strawmen in the article description. "Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects. Other conservatives like the commercial space part of the Obama policy and tend to gloss over the cancellation of space exploration or even denigrate the Constellation program as 'unworkable' or 'unsustainable.'"
Like who? Which conservatives? All the conservatives I've talked to think that unless there's a corporation somewhere profiting from our activities in space, it's not worth spending money on. I have no doubt that Obama's plan to focus on profitable LEO projects pleases the typical conservative, while launching RC cars to Mars plays as a complete waste of money in their minds.
I'd like to see a fiscal conservative support sending ice drilling autonomous subs to Europa to search for possible signs of life. I think their heads would spontaneously explode....
Depending on the debugger, it might be advantageous to split it out verbosely at first, the consolidate the code once the range of values coming in are understood. I would write it in short form first, break it out if things weren't behaving as expected, then smoosh it back together once I had it figured out.