On a somewhat similar note, I just purchased an 7200rpm 80gb WD drive to replace my ailing 12gb Bigfoot. For some reason, Win2k would not let me format any partition on it greater than 30gb or so. I'm stuck with dividing it into 3 partitions. I can't seem to find any documentation on it, so would anyone have any clue as to why this so?
if you spilled wine on your seat, all the alcohol would likely evaporate within the hour. and why would you have an open bottle of wine in the driver's seat anyway?
Someone suggested that it could be spilt on you on your way out of the restaurant. But what about cologne or aftershave? Windshield wiper fluid. Any number of ordinary products could contain enough alcohol to set this thing off. It's not a perfect detector, it's not likely to be improved to anything even remotely reliable for law enforcement, but they'll go ahead and use it anyway. It's stupid, so so stupid.
There are many Christian scientists out there who have made bigger leaps and bounds in their fields than any atheist could, and I attribute this to the greater understanding of the universe that comes from a worldview that presupposes the truth of the Bible.
I'm sorry, the what? The truth of the bible? You must be joking. There is no way you can call yourself a scientist, or even a logical person, and still profess the belief that the christian bible is a factual account of history. The universe was created in 6 days a mere 6000 years ago, mankind descends entirely from two people, this hippie was crucified and died and woke up 3 days later in perfect health. Uh huh. Kindly name one of these scientists of yours and explain why he or she could only have made their discovery because of their undying belief in the supernatural.
Accepting the bible as fact without copious amounts of doublethink requires the individual to totally ignore any and all research into evolution, geology, astronomy, anthropology, and who knows how many more fields, all in favor of a totally unverifiable dogma with holes so big in it I could fly a 747 through them. All science is is a system by which we collect and verify knowledge. Faith demands that you ignore evidence in front of your face and accept only what you already "know" to be true.
What we ask is that you provide the slightest bit of real evidence of the existence of this fabled mythical all-powerful entity and his whims about how we are supposed to act if we want to procure a reservation for an invisible non-corporeal aspect of our consciousness into an eternal paradise in the clouds. If you enjoy the belief, fine. More power to you. But will you please stop claiming that you are somehow superior to the rest of us because of it?
If I blindly accept the existence of my God (which I don't), you blindly accept his non-existence and are no less guilty than I.
How can you accept his existence in any way other than blindly? There's no proof whatsoever to his existence, and Occam's Razor implies that he therefore doesn't exist. And where'd you get the idea that I have to prove you wrong? You conjure up this random set of beliefs about life and death and tell me that I must provide evidence while you do not? I don't think so. How about I claim that there's a habitable planet in the Centauri system that is covered with beautiful beaches with scantily clad women all over the place just waiting to make my acquaintence. I challenge you to prove me wrong. You can't? Oh, well then I must be right and you're going to hell. That's about the extent of the christian argument covering god's existence.
So, if you don't like the stupid things going on in Ireland or Zimbabwe in the name of Christianity, GOOD! God doesn't like it either and their sin is no better than yours
And you know this how? Did he set fire to the tree in your front yard and say, "Mike, I don't like what's going on in Ireland and Zimbabwe in my name. Thank you." For all you know, he loves violent death. Certainly your church has dispensed its share of misery. You freely admit that practitioners of your faith are often steaming piles of hypocritical bullshit and then look to these same people for guidance? Explain to me why I would want to be a part of that.
Re:Driving is a RIGHT, not a priviledge.
on
Remote Breathalyzer
·
· Score: 2
our governemnt doesnt own the road
I agree, but by that line of reasoning we also own aircraft carriers and NASA and the CIA. You try throwing your weight around there and see how far you get.
Re:So I will drive with my windows open, NEXT
on
Remote Breathalyzer
·
· Score: 2
I think the argument goes that all the roads are government property, therefore using them means you signed an EULA which gives traffic cops the right to break your bones and search your rectum for crack and whatnot. Of course, this implies that you can drive offroad with more alcohol than blood in your system...
For instance, if a car signals a cop and the cop sees there is only the driver in the car, he will certainly pull him over. On the other hand, if the car signals and the cop sees a driver who is driving just fine and two people in the back seat who may have been drinking, he might not pull the car over
Bull. Much of this will be at night, when you can barely even see in the car, much less the number and condition of the people inside. The car is driving just fine? Means nothing, a lot of drunks drive fine, it's just their reflexes are virtually nonexistent. Furthermore, how often will this happen? How many cops do you pass on a 30 minute drive? Sometimes none, sure, but sometimes a lot. Every single one of them is likely to pull you over on suspicion of DUI, even if all you've got is some spilled wine on your shirt or a drunk in the back seat. Explain to me how that's in any way, shape, or form reasonable.
you'll get pulled over, but would be excused because you (the driver) are found to be sober
Ok, fine. It's a hassle to be pulled over like that simply because my passengers are drunk, but what the hey...
Unfortunately, a mile down the road is another cop, who pulls me over and I go through this again. If this trip is of any length, I'm likely to get stopped more than once. At this point, I'll simply ignore the flashing lights and talk to the cop from my driveway.
Don't confuse black holes with the singularities inside them. Singularities are perfect geometric points; black holes are regions bounded by an event horizon that contain a singularity.
Uh, hello? Finish reading my post.
"But really, this is all moot. A black hole does not have density in any sense of the word. Its gravity is so large that it consumes itself and neatly exits the universe. It is a perfect geometric point, having mass but no volume, and since density = mass/volume, its density is a division by zero and requires a universal exception handler. The 93 million miles refers to the diameter of the event horizon, which is the point at which light itself can no longer escape."
Hmmmmmm, estmated speeds of 200 to 1000 kps, figure 600 kps average, 9.4 trillion km per l.y., 2 million l.y. to Andromeda, (9.4e12 * 2e6) / (600 * 31,536,000 sec/year) = close to 1 billion years away. Don't hold your breath.
Should be quite a show
No doubt. Get tickets early, cuz the theater's bound to be packed.
The orbits of individual stars and gas clouds are basically stable, Keplerian orbits
Yeah, really fscking long ones; plus they've got this vertical oscillation. I think Sol's orbit is 200 MYears and the oscillation is 26 MYears. It's thought there may be some correlation between mass extinctions here on earth and when we go through the thickest part of galaxy.
the only real requirement for a black hole is to have zero volume, anything could become a black hole if compressed enough
Indeed. Problem is, the smaller a black hole, the faster it evaporates due to Hawking radiation*. So while you could theoretically turn my cat into a black hole, neither he nor it will last very long (provided you do it somewhere far away from some mass is can eat up). And you'd owe me a new cat.
* Hawking radiation: he hypothesized that all the time all over the universe, pairs of virtual particles pop up. They are anti-particles to each other, so they annihilate each other as soon as they appear and nobody is the wiser. But, should a pair appear right on the event horizon, one particle gets sucked in and the other goes free and to balance the energy books, the black hole loses a very, very small amount of energy. Needless to say, it takes a while. This big monster of a hole will probably evaporate around 10^100 A.D.
Ok, if sphere A is twice as wide as sphere B, it's 2^3 = 8 times as big. If it's 107.8 times as wide, it's therefore 107.8^3 = 1252726 times as big. Volume is a third degree relationship.
If it's 2.6e6 times as massive, then its density is 2.6e6/1252726 = 2.08 times as dense.
But really, this is all moot. A black hole does not have density in any sense of the word. Its gravity is so large that it consumes itself and neatly exits the universe. It is a perfect geometric point, having mass but no volume, and since density = mass/volume, its density is a division by zero and requires a universal exception handler. The 93 million miles refers to the diameter of the event horizon, which is the point at which light itself can no longer escape.
Of course, nobody knows what it actually looks like inside the event horizon, so it's possible that the black hole consists of 2.6 million Solar masses worth of chocolate bars or something.
Now if we were only able to put nuclear powered spaceships in space (such as the "Orion" design mentioned by Carl Sagan in Cosmos) and have craft capable of 1/10 the speed of light.
The Orion design, first thought of way back in the beginning of the space race, is nuclear propelled, not nuclear powered, per se. I imagine you could rig up some system to extract power from it, though. Problem is, it involves setting off nuclear weapons in space, which is generally frowned upon by politicians and the great unwashed. It also can't be used too near Earth because of those pesky EMP's. But for interplanetary propulsion, it's fantastic; far and away more efficient than any chemical drive could be.
But I guarantee you, the vast majority of the population wouldn't let it happen. Just look at the uproar over Casini, which had an altogether puny amount of plutonium on it.
The indians' ancestors had been scooped up by some aliens a long time ago and deposited on a nice little forest planet while the Nazis were due to the influence of a tinkering Federation historian.
But yeah, "Bread and Circuses" and "Miri" were kinda pushing it.
Except that Captain Koloth appears as both. He's human-looking in The Trouble With Tribbles and got the forehead from hell in DS9 Blood Oath. Really, they should have just put the difference down to the low make-up budget in the 60's and never paid it any attention (even in Trials and Tribble-ations).
Hell yeah; how many rich newlyweds would part with a few zero's to have their honeymoon in null-g? If I had the money and the girl, I know I sure would.
Agree that Russia has other things that it should be focusing it's attention on.
But does anyone else see the supreme irony in what was once the foremost nation in the USSR being the first to establish a manned commercial presence in space while the American agency fights tooth and nail to keep from collecting $20M for babysitting Tito for a few days?
The hope is that this thing might, just might, start turning a profit, and quickly. Considering that Tito was willing to fight to spend $20M on his trip, I imagine they'll find some heavy investors to help.
The old model doesn't translate well to the digital age
We know;. That's what the DMCA was supposed to address. But what makes you think our oh-so tech-savvy legislators will do any better the second time around, espeially given the lobyists' and copyright office's glowing reviews of the current incarnation of the Copyright Lawyers' Employment Act?
It's an attempt at hashing the old way so it'll work with the new, and I agree, it's a pointless endeavor. They'll have to just start from scratch. But the people who are in a position of authority to do that are the ones least likely to try. The DMCA passed unanimously in the Senate, remember? Look at the IRS; there is nobody on this planet who thinks they run particularly well or could be totally fixed with just a few more laws, yet it continues. Why should copyright law be any different, particularly when the big money is pushing for even more restrictions on us.
Slashdot Mirror
problem with drives over 137GB in IDE
On a somewhat similar note, I just purchased an 7200rpm 80gb WD drive to replace my ailing 12gb Bigfoot. For some reason, Win2k would not let me format any partition on it greater than 30gb or so. I'm stuck with dividing it into 3 partitions. I can't seem to find any documentation on it, so would anyone have any clue as to why this so?
if you spilled wine on your seat, all the alcohol would likely evaporate within the hour.
and why would you have an open bottle of wine in the driver's seat anyway?
Someone suggested that it could be spilt on you on your way out of the restaurant. But what about cologne or aftershave? Windshield wiper fluid. Any number of ordinary products could contain enough alcohol to set this thing off. It's not a perfect detector, it's not likely to be improved to anything even remotely reliable for law enforcement, but they'll go ahead and use it anyway. It's stupid, so so stupid.
There are many Christian scientists out there who have made bigger leaps and bounds in their fields than any atheist could, and I attribute this to the greater understanding of the universe that comes from a worldview that presupposes the truth of the Bible.
I'm sorry, the what? The truth of the bible? You must be joking. There is no way you can call yourself a scientist, or even a logical person, and still profess the belief that the christian bible is a factual account of history. The universe was created in 6 days a mere 6000 years ago, mankind descends entirely from two people, this hippie was crucified and died and woke up 3 days later in perfect health. Uh huh. Kindly name one of these scientists of yours and explain why he or she could only have made their discovery because of their undying belief in the supernatural.
Accepting the bible as fact without copious amounts of doublethink requires the individual to totally ignore any and all research into evolution, geology, astronomy, anthropology, and who knows how many more fields, all in favor of a totally unverifiable dogma with holes so big in it I could fly a 747 through them. All science is is a system by which we collect and verify knowledge. Faith demands that you ignore evidence in front of your face and accept only what you already "know" to be true.
What we ask is that you provide the slightest bit of real evidence of the existence of this fabled mythical all-powerful entity and his whims about how we are supposed to act if we want to procure a reservation for an invisible non-corporeal aspect of our consciousness into an eternal paradise in the clouds. If you enjoy the belief, fine. More power to you. But will you please stop claiming that you are somehow superior to the rest of us because of it?
If I blindly accept the existence of my God (which I don't), you blindly accept his non-existence and are no less guilty than I.
How can you accept his existence in any way other than blindly? There's no proof whatsoever to his existence, and Occam's Razor implies that he therefore doesn't exist. And where'd you get the idea that I have to prove you wrong? You conjure up this random set of beliefs about life and death and tell me that I must provide evidence while you do not? I don't think so. How about I claim that there's a habitable planet in the Centauri system that is covered with beautiful beaches with scantily clad women all over the place just waiting to make my acquaintence. I challenge you to prove me wrong. You can't? Oh, well then I must be right and you're going to hell. That's about the extent of the christian argument covering god's existence.
So, if you don't like the stupid things going on in Ireland or Zimbabwe in the name of Christianity, GOOD! God doesn't like it either and their sin is no better than yours
And you know this how? Did he set fire to the tree in your front yard and say, "Mike, I don't like what's going on in Ireland and Zimbabwe in my name. Thank you." For all you know, he loves violent death. Certainly your church has dispensed its share of misery. You freely admit that practitioners of your faith are often steaming piles of hypocritical bullshit and then look to these same people for guidance? Explain to me why I would want to be a part of that.
our governemnt doesnt own the road
I agree, but by that line of reasoning we also own aircraft carriers and NASA and the CIA. You try throwing your weight around there and see how far you get.
I think the argument goes that all the roads are government property, therefore using them means you signed an EULA which gives traffic cops the right to break your bones and search your rectum for crack and whatnot. Of course, this implies that you can drive offroad with more alcohol than blood in your system...
For instance, if a car signals a cop and the cop sees there is only the driver in the car, he will certainly pull him over. On the other hand, if the car signals and the cop sees a driver who is driving just fine and two people in the back seat who may have been drinking, he might not pull the car over
Bull. Much of this will be at night, when you can barely even see in the car, much less the number and condition of the people inside. The car is driving just fine? Means nothing, a lot of drunks drive fine, it's just their reflexes are virtually nonexistent. Furthermore, how often will this happen? How many cops do you pass on a 30 minute drive? Sometimes none, sure, but sometimes a lot. Every single one of them is likely to pull you over on suspicion of DUI, even if all you've got is some spilled wine on your shirt or a drunk in the back seat. Explain to me how that's in any way, shape, or form reasonable.
you'll get pulled over, but would be excused because you (the driver) are found to be sober
Ok, fine. It's a hassle to be pulled over like that simply because my passengers are drunk, but what the hey...
Unfortunately, a mile down the road is another cop, who pulls me over and I go through this again. If this trip is of any length, I'm likely to get stopped more than once. At this point, I'll simply ignore the flashing lights and talk to the cop from my driveway.
Don't confuse black holes with the singularities inside them. Singularities are perfect geometric points; black holes are regions bounded by an event horizon that contain a singularity.
Uh, hello? Finish reading my post.
"But really, this is all moot. A black hole does not have density in any sense of the word. Its gravity is so large that it consumes itself and neatly exits the universe. It is a perfect geometric point, having mass but no volume, and since density = mass/volume, its density is a division by zero and requires a universal exception handler. The 93 million miles refers to the diameter of the event horizon, which is the point at which light itself can no longer escape."
Andromeda Galaxy is heading our way
Hmmmmmm, estmated speeds of 200 to 1000 kps, figure 600 kps average, 9.4 trillion km per l.y., 2 million l.y. to Andromeda, (9.4e12 * 2e6) / (600 * 31,536,000 sec/year) = close to 1 billion years away. Don't hold your breath.
Should be quite a show
No doubt. Get tickets early, cuz the theater's bound to be packed.
The orbits of individual stars and gas clouds are basically stable, Keplerian orbits
Yeah, really fscking long ones; plus they've got this vertical oscillation. I think Sol's orbit is 200 MYears and the oscillation is 26 MYears. It's thought there may be some correlation between mass extinctions here on earth and when we go through the thickest part of galaxy.
30,000 years. Not a few million.
the only real requirement for a black hole is to have zero volume, anything could become a black hole if compressed enough
Indeed. Problem is, the smaller a black hole, the faster it evaporates due to Hawking radiation*. So while you could theoretically turn my cat into a black hole, neither he nor it will last very long (provided you do it somewhere far away from some mass is can eat up). And you'd owe me a new cat.
* Hawking radiation: he hypothesized that all the time all over the universe, pairs of virtual particles pop up. They are anti-particles to each other, so they annihilate each other as soon as they appear and nobody is the wiser. But, should a pair appear right on the event horizon, one particle gets sucked in and the other goes free and to balance the energy books, the black hole loses a very, very small amount of energy. Needless to say, it takes a while. This big monster of a hole will probably evaporate around 10^100 A.D.
Ok, if sphere A is twice as wide as sphere B, it's 2^3 = 8 times as big. If it's 107.8 times as wide, it's therefore 107.8^3 = 1252726 times as big. Volume is a third degree relationship.
If it's 2.6e6 times as massive, then its density is 2.6e6/1252726 = 2.08 times as dense.
But really, this is all moot. A black hole does not have density in any sense of the word. Its gravity is so large that it consumes itself and neatly exits the universe. It is a perfect geometric point, having mass but no volume, and since density = mass/volume, its density is a division by zero and requires a universal exception handler. The 93 million miles refers to the diameter of the event horizon, which is the point at which light itself can no longer escape.
Of course, nobody knows what it actually looks like inside the event horizon, so it's possible that the black hole consists of 2.6 million Solar masses worth of chocolate bars or something.
Now if we were only able to put nuclear powered spaceships in space (such as the "Orion" design mentioned by Carl Sagan in Cosmos) and have craft capable of 1/10 the speed of light.
The Orion design, first thought of way back in the beginning of the space race, is nuclear propelled, not nuclear powered, per se. I imagine you could rig up some system to extract power from it, though. Problem is, it involves setting off nuclear weapons in space, which is generally frowned upon by politicians and the great unwashed. It also can't be used too near Earth because of those pesky EMP's. But for interplanetary propulsion, it's fantastic; far and away more efficient than any chemical drive could be.
But I guarantee you, the vast majority of the population wouldn't let it happen. Just look at the uproar over Casini, which had an altogether puny amount of plutonium on it.
Khan. KHAN! KHAN! actually, that's an interesting story thread that they could dust off and examine. And it would be topical to what's happening ITRW
Of course, there's the slight problem of the Eugenics Wars of the late 1990's apparently not making the headlines...
Across Realtime, A Fire Upon the Deep, and A Deepness in the Sky, by Vernor Vinge.
The indians' ancestors had been scooped up by some aliens a long time ago and deposited on a nice little forest planet while the Nazis were due to the influence of a tinkering Federation historian.
But yeah, "Bread and Circuses" and "Miri" were kinda pushing it.
Except that Captain Koloth appears as both. He's human-looking in The Trouble With Tribbles and got the forehead from hell in DS9 Blood Oath. Really, they should have just put the difference down to the low make-up budget in the 60's and never paid it any attention (even in Trials and Tribble-ations).
Hell yeah; how many rich newlyweds would part with a few zero's to have their honeymoon in null-g? If I had the money and the girl, I know I sure would.
Agree that Russia has other things that it should be focusing it's attention on.
But does anyone else see the supreme irony in what was once the foremost nation in the USSR being the first to establish a manned commercial presence in space while the American agency fights tooth and nail to keep from collecting $20M for babysitting Tito for a few days?
The hope is that this thing might, just might, start turning a profit, and quickly. Considering that Tito was willing to fight to spend $20M on his trip, I imagine they'll find some heavy investors to help.
The old model doesn't translate well to the digital age
We know;. That's what the DMCA was supposed to address. But what makes you think our oh-so tech-savvy legislators will do any better the second time around, espeially given the lobyists' and copyright office's glowing reviews of the current incarnation of the Copyright Lawyers' Employment Act?
It's an attempt at hashing the old way so it'll work with the new, and I agree, it's a pointless endeavor. They'll have to just start from scratch. But the people who are in a position of authority to do that are the ones least likely to try. The DMCA passed unanimously in the Senate, remember? Look at the IRS; there is nobody on this planet who thinks they run particularly well or could be totally fixed with just a few more laws, yet it continues. Why should copyright law be any different, particularly when the big money is pushing for even more restrictions on us.
Velocity leaving the cannon: 2380.4 m/s
Velocity as it gently plowed into the steel plates: 2641.6 m/s
delta v: 261.2 m/s
delta t: 0.03 s
v = a*t, therefore acceleration from the scramjet = 261.2/0.03 = 8706 g. Probably they just rounded up to 10k because it looked cooler.
His boots.
Exactly. It hit the steel plates going 1000 ft/s faster than when it left the cannon. That's a lot of speed to add in a mere 0.03 seconds.
Too bad there aren't any accompanying pictures, but with a flight time of less than a second, I guess they'd be hard to get.
Nope. There are plenty of cameras that could take many pictures in such a period of time.