But there is a flaw. The moral panic over child porn is focused on protecting other people's children, or children in general. Not one's own relatives.
Unworkable, then. Oh, well, it was an interesting idea. Maybe it'd be of some use in even further improving the already-impressive thermal insulation property, but it's not going to lead to any lighter-than-air solids.
Which is fine apart from the microscopic cracks that form from the stresses of wind force, acceleration, thermal expansion and changes in atmospheric pressure. To helium, a microscopic crack might as well be an open door. Maybe if you laminated plastic and lead... but that would be a material like mylar, which is already used in party balloons and doesn't hold helium for more than a few days at that scale. It's possible such an approach would work, but it would require the development of a completly new containment composite material.
Depends on the space. Space in a solar system would have slightly more particles than space between solar systems. The emptiest space of all would be in between galactic clusters, the closest thing to a perfect vaccuum to be found in nature.
How about something like aerogel, only trapping vacuum rather than air? It's be prohibatively difficult to manufacture, if it can be manufactured at all, but could it be done in theory? Need a specialist in materials engineering to determine that.
Helium is a very fiddley gas. Not only are it's atoms tiny, tiny things, but they don't even form molecules like hydrogen has the decency to. They'll easily seep out through even the most apparently impervious materials - that's why party balloons deflate. The only way to contain it is a thick-skinned container, which would be very heavy.
I'm no more qualified to state the reason than the original commenter. It's clear that child porn is a powerfully emotive topic - few other issues can invoke such a response, and no other criminals are so loathed and hated. Exactly why this is the case is a much harder question to answer. It's possible he was onto something, and the answer really does lie in genetically-coded instincts to protect children, but it's difficult to prove this is the case.
That's an understatement. It's as if he is trying to combine an appeal to the old theological concept of natural law as a source of morality with a more modern interpretation of evolution as a source of natural law. Incoherent doesn't quite cover it. The best argument I can extract from there doesn't actually say anything about the morality of child pornography or child sexualisation at all, but just tries to explain by pop-psychiatry the reason for the extreme intensity of the emotional response of most people faced with the subject.
They've actually been a bit of a problem in some enforcement efforts. They aren't very good at following very strict legal procedures regarding integrity of evidence, avoiding incitement to offend, things like that. It means their evidence is easily thrown out of court, and prosecution difficult. PJ is so eager they can be self-defeating.
Many countries also criminalise the posession of even drawn pictures. I know that the US, UK and Australia all so, and I imagine the same to be true in much of the rest of the world.
n^3 is still a whole lot better than 2^n though. A quantum computer of the 2030s may make short work of current cryptography. I'm sure new, quantum-proof methods will be developed to take their place though. Something to worry about only if you're encrypting data now that may be of value still in twenty years, and expect attackers dedicated enough to keep a copy all that time until the tech becomes available.
Not by conventional computers. In theory, a quantum computer could break public key encryption, since it can factorise products of two primes in O(log(n)) rather than O(2^n). Such devices may become available, but not for another decade at least. I don't know if one would be any good on symmetric encryption though.
The thousands of pieces of indie crap problem is solveable now. It's one of the few good things to come from social networking - word of mouth speads fast. Good artists will become well known, while the bad ones shall remain obscure. Like me.
You could also argue about the cost of enforcement in terms of public benefit. Preventing murder requires a police force granted certain powers to infringe individual rights for the purposes of investigation under exceptional circumstances. But preventing all piracy, or even a substantial majority of internet piracy? The only way to do that is to get really draconian. Mass-surveilance, bans on copying technology even for non-infringing uses, government-mandated filtering on every internet connection. Even the justice system has to be simply thrown away - it's far too expensive to prove beyond reasonable doubt even a tiny percentage of infringements, so the only way to enforce it is to lower standards to a 'guilty unless proven innocent' approach where just suspicion is enough to have someone punished, even on hastily-collected evidence.
In which case the copyright duration is 95 years in the US. Currently. It's widely anticipated that it will be extended yet again once Steamboat Willie starts drawing close to public domain - Disney will spend billions on lobbying to protect their copyright on the Micky Mouse character, if that's what it takes.
Slashdot Mirror
But there is a flaw. The moral panic over child porn is focused on protecting other people's children, or children in general. Not one's own relatives.
Linux supports TPM - but will the govenment agencies support linux?
Unworkable, then. Oh, well, it was an interesting idea. Maybe it'd be of some use in even further improving the already-impressive thermal insulation property, but it's not going to lead to any lighter-than-air solids.
Which is fine apart from the microscopic cracks that form from the stresses of wind force, acceleration, thermal expansion and changes in atmospheric pressure. To helium, a microscopic crack might as well be an open door. Maybe if you laminated plastic and lead... but that would be a material like mylar, which is already used in party balloons and doesn't hold helium for more than a few days at that scale. It's possible such an approach would work, but it would require the development of a completly new containment composite material.
You can still trap it. You just need to use a container to keep gas *out* rather than in.
Cheaper I think to transport water. Collapseable containers, easier to fill, and no worry about disposing of the bricks piling up at the loading bay.
Does anyone in the major Western media believe the claim? Iran isn't exactly trustworthy, and OPEC nations have a history of exagerating oil reserves.
Depends on the space. Space in a solar system would have slightly more particles than space between solar systems. The emptiest space of all would be in between galactic clusters, the closest thing to a perfect vaccuum to be found in nature.
How about something like aerogel, only trapping vacuum rather than air? It's be prohibatively difficult to manufacture, if it can be manufactured at all, but could it be done in theory? Need a specialist in materials engineering to determine that.
Helium is a very fiddley gas. Not only are it's atoms tiny, tiny things, but they don't even form molecules like hydrogen has the decency to. They'll easily seep out through even the most apparently impervious materials - that's why party balloons deflate. The only way to contain it is a thick-skinned container, which would be very heavy.
I'm no more qualified to state the reason than the original commenter. It's clear that child porn is a powerfully emotive topic - few other issues can invoke such a response, and no other criminals are so loathed and hated. Exactly why this is the case is a much harder question to answer. It's possible he was onto something, and the answer really does lie in genetically-coded instincts to protect children, but it's difficult to prove this is the case.
That's an understatement. It's as if he is trying to combine an appeal to the old theological concept of natural law as a source of morality with a more modern interpretation of evolution as a source of natural law. Incoherent doesn't quite cover it. The best argument I can extract from there doesn't actually say anything about the morality of child pornography or child sexualisation at all, but just tries to explain by pop-psychiatry the reason for the extreme intensity of the emotional response of most people faced with the subject.
They've actually been a bit of a problem in some enforcement efforts. They aren't very good at following very strict legal procedures regarding integrity of evidence, avoiding incitement to offend, things like that. It means their evidence is easily thrown out of court, and prosecution difficult. PJ is so eager they can be self-defeating.
They were in response to a long history of anti-consumer actions on Sony's part. The removal of Other OS was just the final straw.
Many countries also criminalise the posession of even drawn pictures. I know that the US, UK and Australia all so, and I imagine the same to be true in much of the rest of the world.
By that logic, the feds should just let the sites run indefinatly and advertise openly in order to provide a steady stream of visitors to prosecute.
n^3 is still a whole lot better than 2^n though. A quantum computer of the 2030s may make short work of current cryptography. I'm sure new, quantum-proof methods will be developed to take their place though. Something to worry about only if you're encrypting data now that may be of value still in twenty years, and expect attackers dedicated enough to keep a copy all that time until the tech becomes available.
Not by conventional computers. In theory, a quantum computer could break public key encryption, since it can factorise products of two primes in O(log(n)) rather than O(2^n). Such devices may become available, but not for another decade at least. I don't know if one would be any good on symmetric encryption though.
The thousands of pieces of indie crap problem is solveable now. It's one of the few good things to come from social networking - word of mouth speads fast. Good artists will become well known, while the bad ones shall remain obscure. Like me.
You could also argue about the cost of enforcement in terms of public benefit. Preventing murder requires a police force granted certain powers to infringe individual rights for the purposes of investigation under exceptional circumstances. But preventing all piracy, or even a substantial majority of internet piracy? The only way to do that is to get really draconian. Mass-surveilance, bans on copying technology even for non-infringing uses, government-mandated filtering on every internet connection. Even the justice system has to be simply thrown away - it's far too expensive to prove beyond reasonable doubt even a tiny percentage of infringements, so the only way to enforce it is to lower standards to a 'guilty unless proven innocent' approach where just suspicion is enough to have someone punished, even on hastily-collected evidence.
In which case the copyright duration is 95 years in the US. Currently. It's widely anticipated that it will be extended yet again once Steamboat Willie starts drawing close to public domain - Disney will spend billions on lobbying to protect their copyright on the Micky Mouse character, if that's what it takes.
We are discussing the hypothetical implications of Ron Paul's brand of libertarianism. Such laws would be in violation of that political position.
And both regulation and tax collection he objects to on princible.
But that doesn't save money, just shuffling responsibilities around.
I imagine that Ron Paul's ultra-libertarian ideology would also require he axe the national park program too.