Nobody (except maybe the usual few paranoids, and perhaps the usual tabloid corporate mass media that loves them) said in the 1970s that oil would run out by the 1990s. What was said, by Kingman, who said in the 1950s that American oil would peak in the early 1970s and was right, was that global oil would peak in the 1990s. Peak does not mean end - it means the opposite, the maximum production. But Kingman's research showed in both cases that the peak would be followed immediately by a dropoff as steep and as short as was the ramp-up leading to the peak. However, demand continues to increase, so the shortfall grows even more rapidly, and immediately after the peak (once any relatively small surplus is consumed).
What Kingman's research did not have was the self-reflexive consequences of his research on the supply and demand curves. When America's oil peaked in the early 1970s, the resulting oil crunch not only changed the supply and demand curves that Kingman couldn't account for because the crunch and response data had never existed before. It also changed the appreciation of Kingman's research, and of his prediction that the global peak was coming. So that the world prepared in many ways for the next predicted peak, the global one. By the time the 1990s came, the effects were around: some peaking in large Saudi fields helped create the shortage pricing that we've never left since then. And the peak was delayed. But not for very long. Mainly what happened was that estimates of reserves were exaggerated (lies), in large amounts.
So we are indeed in the global peak oil period now, and in some ways have been since the 1990s.
The Baby Boomers put all the oil into the air as CO2.
We should put solar panels on the moon, laser the power down into the Earth's atmosphere, and crack that CO2 back into liquid hydrocarbons for making plastic, releasing its oxygen for the double whammy.
The specific interesting consequence you described is not a possible consequence of the FSC. There is no paradox. You're just not understanding properly what properties are dependent on the FSC, and which change with it.
I'm developing a wireless sensor network that's architected as distributed sensor/actuator nodes gatewayed to a hub, which preprocesses data (and encrypts/compresses it for W/WAN transmission), has local scenarios for some immediate responses, and reports to / is controlled by a server that is one of a few thousand nodes on a WAN (some 3G, some wired broadband Internet) with the real application orchestration at a central datacenter. We are upgrading dumb wired sensors on a PIC-based embedded server back to the central Java application server. The embedded server will need to perform something like an Atom/1.66GHz, and the sensors could benefit from a little more smarts than a PIC (but need years of battery life).
So I've been planning a Zigbee WLAN gatewayed to a PC. I see that Ember has a line of integrated Zigbee/ARM-C3 SoCs. I also see some embedded PCs with ARM C-9, in interesting configs (highly integrated/bundled HW for the rest of the system). ARM C-3 in the sensor/actuator nodes is probably a little bit overkill, but if the node can cost $20 (qty1000), we can find a use for the extra smarts. If I do discover the Ember parts are the right fit, I wonder whether their ARM C-3 offers any reason to favor an ARM C-9 (or better) in the embedded server. We'd run Linux on the embedded server, but if Android were suitable and stable I'd like to try it instead.
So does using ARM C-3 in the wireless nodes give me any reason to prefer the server they feed also run on an ARM CPU?
No, as the value of c changes (if it changes), the amount of energy changes with it to match. The FSC does not govern whether or not a closed system conserves energy.
However, if FSC changes, then it might be possible that somewhere in the universe where the FSC is different than here that the matter is equivalent to much more energy, and even that the structure of matter is more unstable and easier to convert to energy. So in (completely speculative and possibly full of holes) theory, we could send a reactor built on Earth that would do nothing useful here out to that distant "special region" where it actually works, and send the energy back here (possibly as a laser, or by accelerating the reactor and some kind of charged "battery" back here).
The maze of fundamental constants and their fixed relations is a straitjacket that confines our local nature. Even though some are independent of others, a variation in something so fundamental as the FSC can mean that there are other ways to exploit the difference - once the engineering catches up to the science.
That's a big book at 12 volumes, but it's not an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is "training in a circle", the "full circle" of knowledge of the world. "Iraq War Jr" is not a full circle; even "everything about its Wikipedia entry" is merely a small point of knowledge in a full education.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Indeed, it's more like a cylinder, since its circle is stacked atop the previous circle of revisions. It's an encylindropedia.
Which supernova did this shrapnel originate in? Is it still around somewhere, 4.5Gy later? Do we know where it was, or even which direction in today's sky it would be if it were still there?
And Google wasn't relative in the video market until it bought YouTube, since when it's been synonymous with "Internet TV". TV even has a whole show replaying YouTube clips.
Your questions are meaningless. What kind of a clown keeps shooting their mouth off when they know absolutely nothing of either the legal rules that give the actual actions meaning, or the evidence, or anything else?
The LSAT? You are fool. Do you post on Slashdot because nobody in person lets you open your mouth, since only gibberish ever comes out? Shut up already, you freak monkey.
You have no idea about how the legal system even works, you don't know the details including the prosecutor's public statements of contempt for the quality of the complaints, you have no evidence, you have nothing but a meaningless sports metaphor.
He is a celebrity. A 50-something normal (non-geek) woman neighbor of mine asked me about him (before the "rape" complaints). Anyone "famous for 15 minutes" or more, which is anyone whose face gets on any nation's TV (especially in the US) is a "celebrity".
If he were a professional athlete, the women complaining would have come along with expensive and effective lawyers to squeeze $millions from him in blackmail, with the same baseless stories against him.
The only real difference here is that Assange doesn't have the money to be a target of a properly orchestrated celebrity blackmail scheme.
But the discredit in the schoolyard media works in the Pentagon's infowar against him, so it stays. Not necessarily because the women complaining were anything more than useful idiots. But the celebrity smear is a sticky medium, once launched into action.
Guilty of what? Show me some evidence, instead of "guilty when the Pentagon's sockpuppets say".
There's no "sentence", because the complaints were so worthless that the prosecutor threw them out and complained. Yet the story doesn't die in the media, because of people like you who will repeat it without knowing anything - which gives poser politicians the audience they need to amplify them.
By all accounts, Mesa3d on Cell still doesn't really work.
Which is why I'm also still waiting for a hack that lets me use some revision of an nVidia driver on the PS3 RSX, the video chip that I bought inside the PS3s I bought.
You keep insisting that I'm basing my value judgment of what they said on how many people say it, but once again I'll point out that I didn't. It's not irrelevant when rebutting someone saying "I speak for everyone", as I already said, but which you insist on ignoring.
As for your claiming that "a minority can speak for a majority", you're referring to various kinds of republics. If you and I showed up at the UN claiming to "speak for everybody" about anything, even things that agree with what the UN has said and done, no one would listen to us. Because it takes more than a minority to make a republic. Or at least a legitimate one like our Constitutional democratic republic, or even the oligarchic republic that is the UN.
Also, motives are not "ad hominem". An argument is either ad hominem or it isn't, and mine clearly isn't, despite your fuzzy accusations that it was.
And yet you keep calling me a "wingnut". You're posting anonymously a load of fallacies and even less coherent arguments, including baseless accusations of ad hominem arguing, while you keep calling me a "wingnut".
At least you've proven that not all crackpots are Teabaggers. There's plenty more varieties.
No, you've got it backwards, like they do. I didn't say they're crazy because there's only a few of them. I said that they're crazy and there's only a few of them. I mentioned their small numbers only because I replied to a claim to "speak for all of us", when they speak for only a tiny minority.
Glenn Beck's travesty of Martin Luther King really has you Teabaggers confused about what bigotry is.
You Teabaggers are always calling people "bigot" who aren't judging you by your membership in some group, but rather judging you on your actions. Your actions puts you into the group of Teabaggers, not the other way around.
Everything that protects people is a matter of debate in US legal circles. The 14th Amendment is a matter of widespread debate.
There is such a right. It's clear enough for anyone who isn't trying to abuse our rights from the exact language of the 4th Amendment, especially people who want to outlaw abortion again by undermining the privacy right in our persons the Supreme Court used to nullify Federal regulation of abortion.
As for the UN, it sucks, but it's way better than the alternative: no forum, and even more war. It's not supposed to represent anyone but the member governments, and not equally. The mild restraint is better than nothing, and enough that many wars, including nuclear annihilations, have been avoided by it. So while I'm all for making it better, the "fuck the UN" screeches come from people who just want to eliminate it. Like the many Bushites who wanted to "blow it up", in exactly those terms. People who want the wars that the UN helps avoid, even if it doesn't help enough.
No, it makes you a Teabagger, too. Or just a Republican. Or just a "Libertarian". Or whatever you call yourself to avoid blame for being part of the right wing that gave us 8 years of Bush/Cheney.
I agree with you. That's why so many patriotic Americans oppose the death penalty, and most states eliminated the practice.
But the US is if nothing else a process in democratic republic. We've got enough people who don't really accept that rights are inalienable that the actual implementation still has plenty of archaic practices left from when we first started innovating in democracy.
No, they're a Teabagger because they think they speak for all of us in hating the UN. Walk like a Teabagger, talk like a Teabagger, hate like a Teabagger - you're a Teabagger. After all, since Teabaggers are really just Republicans dishonest enough to pretend they're not, you can judge Teabaggers only by what crazy stuff they do blurt out.
There is a need for cooperation between governments and the private sector on security issues. - UN telecom chief
Yes, there is a need for cooperation between governments and the private sector to protect the people's privacy from invasion by either government or private sector entities. These security issues are far more common, urgent and important than any need for the government or private sector to invade our privacy. And without due process, like evidence/argument/decision in a legitimate court, neither government nor private sector has any "security" interest that should see cooperation by anyone, including people in the government or private sector.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody (except maybe the usual few paranoids, and perhaps the usual tabloid corporate mass media that loves them) said in the 1970s that oil would run out by the 1990s. What was said, by Kingman, who said in the 1950s that American oil would peak in the early 1970s and was right, was that global oil would peak in the 1990s. Peak does not mean end - it means the opposite, the maximum production. But Kingman's research showed in both cases that the peak would be followed immediately by a dropoff as steep and as short as was the ramp-up leading to the peak. However, demand continues to increase, so the shortfall grows even more rapidly, and immediately after the peak (once any relatively small surplus is consumed).
What Kingman's research did not have was the self-reflexive consequences of his research on the supply and demand curves. When America's oil peaked in the early 1970s, the resulting oil crunch not only changed the supply and demand curves that Kingman couldn't account for because the crunch and response data had never existed before. It also changed the appreciation of Kingman's research, and of his prediction that the global peak was coming. So that the world prepared in many ways for the next predicted peak, the global one. By the time the 1990s came, the effects were around: some peaking in large Saudi fields helped create the shortage pricing that we've never left since then. And the peak was delayed. But not for very long. Mainly what happened was that estimates of reserves were exaggerated (lies), in large amounts.
So we are indeed in the global peak oil period now, and in some ways have been since the 1990s.
The Baby Boomers put all the oil into the air as CO2.
We should put solar panels on the moon, laser the power down into the Earth's atmosphere, and crack that CO2 back into liquid hydrocarbons for making plastic, releasing its oxygen for the double whammy.
The specific interesting consequence you described is not a possible consequence of the FSC. There is no paradox. You're just not understanding properly what properties are dependent on the FSC, and which change with it.
"Transcontinental" means "across the (same) continent".
"Intercontinental" means "across (or between) multiple continents".
The Internet is a network of networks. The Transnet is nothing.
I'm developing a wireless sensor network that's architected as distributed sensor/actuator nodes gatewayed to a hub, which preprocesses data (and encrypts/compresses it for W/WAN transmission), has local scenarios for some immediate responses, and reports to / is controlled by a server that is one of a few thousand nodes on a WAN (some 3G, some wired broadband Internet) with the real application orchestration at a central datacenter. We are upgrading dumb wired sensors on a PIC-based embedded server back to the central Java application server. The embedded server will need to perform something like an Atom/1.66GHz, and the sensors could benefit from a little more smarts than a PIC (but need years of battery life).
So I've been planning a Zigbee WLAN gatewayed to a PC. I see that Ember has a line of integrated Zigbee/ARM-C3 SoCs. I also see some embedded PCs with ARM C-9, in interesting configs (highly integrated/bundled HW for the rest of the system). ARM C-3 in the sensor/actuator nodes is probably a little bit overkill, but if the node can cost $20 (qty1000), we can find a use for the extra smarts. If I do discover the Ember parts are the right fit, I wonder whether their ARM C-3 offers any reason to favor an ARM C-9 (or better) in the embedded server. We'd run Linux on the embedded server, but if Android were suitable and stable I'd like to try it instead.
So does using ARM C-3 in the wireless nodes give me any reason to prefer the server they feed also run on an ARM CPU?
No, as the value of c changes (if it changes), the amount of energy changes with it to match. The FSC does not govern whether or not a closed system conserves energy.
However, if FSC changes, then it might be possible that somewhere in the universe where the FSC is different than here that the matter is equivalent to much more energy, and even that the structure of matter is more unstable and easier to convert to energy. So in (completely speculative and possibly full of holes) theory, we could send a reactor built on Earth that would do nothing useful here out to that distant "special region" where it actually works, and send the energy back here (possibly as a laser, or by accelerating the reactor and some kind of charged "battery" back here).
The maze of fundamental constants and their fixed relations is a straitjacket that confines our local nature. Even though some are independent of others, a variation in something so fundamental as the FSC can mean that there are other ways to exploit the difference - once the engineering catches up to the science.
That's a big book at 12 volumes, but it's not an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is "training in a circle", the "full circle" of knowledge of the world. "Iraq War Jr" is not a full circle; even "everything about its Wikipedia entry" is merely a small point of knowledge in a full education.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Indeed, it's more like a cylinder, since its circle is stacked atop the previous circle of revisions. It's an encylindropedia.
Which supernova did this shrapnel originate in? Is it still around somewhere, 4.5Gy later? Do we know where it was, or even which direction in today's sky it would be if it were still there?
And Google wasn't relative in the video market until it bought YouTube, since when it's been synonymous with "Internet TV". TV even has a whole show replaying YouTube clips.
Does this mean that I can use C# to generate a Silverlight app that will run on Windows, Windows Mobile, Linux, Android and iPhone?
Can I write in Java an app that will run on every desktop and mobile?
Your questions are meaningless. What kind of a clown keeps shooting their mouth off when they know absolutely nothing of either the legal rules that give the actual actions meaning, or the evidence, or anything else?
The LSAT? You are fool. Do you post on Slashdot because nobody in person lets you open your mouth, since only gibberish ever comes out? Shut up already, you freak monkey.
You're talking out of your ass:
You have no idea about how the legal system even works, you don't know the details including the prosecutor's public statements of contempt for the quality of the complaints, you have no evidence, you have nothing but a meaningless sports metaphor.
Shut up.
He is a celebrity. A 50-something normal (non-geek) woman neighbor of mine asked me about him (before the "rape" complaints). Anyone "famous for 15 minutes" or more, which is anyone whose face gets on any nation's TV (especially in the US) is a "celebrity".
If he were a professional athlete, the women complaining would have come along with expensive and effective lawyers to squeeze $millions from him in blackmail, with the same baseless stories against him.
The only real difference here is that Assange doesn't have the money to be a target of a properly orchestrated celebrity blackmail scheme.
But the discredit in the schoolyard media works in the Pentagon's infowar against him, so it stays. Not necessarily because the women complaining were anything more than useful idiots. But the celebrity smear is a sticky medium, once launched into action.
Guilty of what? Show me some evidence, instead of "guilty when the Pentagon's sockpuppets say".
There's no "sentence", because the complaints were so worthless that the prosecutor threw them out and complained. Yet the story doesn't die in the media, because of people like you who will repeat it without knowing anything - which gives poser politicians the audience they need to amplify them.
By all accounts, Mesa3d on Cell still doesn't really work.
Which is why I'm also still waiting for a hack that lets me use some revision of an nVidia driver on the PS3 RSX, the video chip that I bought inside the PS3s I bought.
Finally a way to soak up all the work in energy efficiency all over the tech world, and break even in an eternal 2005 of wasted energy!
You keep insisting that I'm basing my value judgment of what they said on how many people say it, but once again I'll point out that I didn't. It's not irrelevant when rebutting someone saying "I speak for everyone", as I already said, but which you insist on ignoring.
As for your claiming that "a minority can speak for a majority", you're referring to various kinds of republics. If you and I showed up at the UN claiming to "speak for everybody" about anything, even things that agree with what the UN has said and done, no one would listen to us. Because it takes more than a minority to make a republic. Or at least a legitimate one like our Constitutional democratic republic, or even the oligarchic republic that is the UN.
Also, motives are not "ad hominem". An argument is either ad hominem or it isn't, and mine clearly isn't, despite your fuzzy accusations that it was.
And yet you keep calling me a "wingnut". You're posting anonymously a load of fallacies and even less coherent arguments, including baseless accusations of ad hominem arguing, while you keep calling me a "wingnut".
At least you've proven that not all crackpots are Teabaggers. There's plenty more varieties.
No, you've got it backwards, like they do. I didn't say they're crazy because there's only a few of them. I said that they're crazy and there's only a few of them. I mentioned their small numbers only because I replied to a claim to "speak for all of us", when they speak for only a tiny minority.
Fallacies like yours suck.
Blu-Ray is not a monopoly any more than "Sun's" Java is. There are other vendors than Sony to buy Blu-Ray from.
And even if it were, Blu-Ray doesn't exert anywhere near the influence over IT as Microsoft does - if any at all.
Glenn Beck's travesty of Martin Luther King really has you Teabaggers confused about what bigotry is.
You Teabaggers are always calling people "bigot" who aren't judging you by your membership in some group, but rather judging you on your actions. Your actions puts you into the group of Teabaggers, not the other way around.
Everything that protects people is a matter of debate in US legal circles. The 14th Amendment is a matter of widespread debate.
There is such a right. It's clear enough for anyone who isn't trying to abuse our rights from the exact language of the 4th Amendment, especially people who want to outlaw abortion again by undermining the privacy right in our persons the Supreme Court used to nullify Federal regulation of abortion.
As for the UN, it sucks, but it's way better than the alternative: no forum, and even more war. It's not supposed to represent anyone but the member governments, and not equally. The mild restraint is better than nothing, and enough that many wars, including nuclear annihilations, have been avoided by it. So while I'm all for making it better, the "fuck the UN" screeches come from people who just want to eliminate it. Like the many Bushites who wanted to "blow it up", in exactly those terms. People who want the wars that the UN helps avoid, even if it doesn't help enough.
No, it makes you a Teabagger, too. Or just a Republican. Or just a "Libertarian". Or whatever you call yourself to avoid blame for being part of the right wing that gave us 8 years of Bush/Cheney.
I agree with you. That's why so many patriotic Americans oppose the death penalty, and most states eliminated the practice.
But the US is if nothing else a process in democratic republic. We've got enough people who don't really accept that rights are inalienable that the actual implementation still has plenty of archaic practices left from when we first started innovating in democracy.
No, they're a Teabagger because they think they speak for all of us in hating the UN. Walk like a Teabagger, talk like a Teabagger, hate like a Teabagger - you're a Teabagger. After all, since Teabaggers are really just Republicans dishonest enough to pretend they're not, you can judge Teabaggers only by what crazy stuff they do blurt out.
Yes, there is a need for cooperation between governments and the private sector to protect the people's privacy from invasion by either government or private sector entities. These security issues are far more common, urgent and important than any need for the government or private sector to invade our privacy. And without due process, like evidence/argument/decision in a legitimate court, neither government nor private sector has any "security" interest that should see cooperation by anyone, including people in the government or private sector.