Or, any software the console user is running? Or, perhaps, a web page that the console user is viewing through a web browser with a security vulnerability that enables remote code execution? Or, perhaps, an ad embedded in a web page that...
You usually don't care what the variable encryption scheme is when you're cracking -- typically, there is a method of simply verifying that the password is accurate, which is what they're doing. (Brute-forcing keys is fairly foolish with modern encryption systems, but brute-forcing passwords isn't.)
All of the electricity you produce gets used in ways that eventually result in it being heat. Solar panels also aren't currently efficient enough to cause that problem -- their albedo and efficiency are low enough that waste heat is generated by putting solar panels in place, rather than "stealing heat".
How the MBH interacts with matter is directly based on the size of its Scwartzchild radius. As this radius is significantly smaller than the atomic scale, it cannot capture atoms efficiently.
You actually picked the weak form of this argument.
Our planet is small and not particularly dense. There's only one, and something like MBH or strangelets could be fairly rare. We could be lucky.
Fortunately, there's an enormous field of stars, including large, dense neutron stars. Neutron stars are great at capturing errant particles, producing MBHes, and things like that. Looking at our estimates of the ages of these neutron stars, you can show that micro black holes cannot be responsible for stellar/planetary destruction.
This is a typical nonsense argument. You imply that because there are some things we don't know (e.g., questions to be answered by the LHC) that it's reasonably possible that we will encounter aberrant behavior that contradicts previous observation.
There are few avenues for the MBH to be incorrect. They already assume that we are wrong about Hawking radiation (otherwise an MBH would boil off immediately). The only real options are that energy conservation is violated and the LHC is able to somehow create a heavy black hole, or the gravitational pull of a MBH is somehow enormously higher than its mass-energy would permit. (As the Schwartzchild radius is directly derived from its gravitational pull, there's not really any room for this to be wrong.)
You are conflating providing for your own welfare with avarice.
On the game theory track, it's well-known that people actually do not choose the "optimal" strategy -- they don't act exclusively in their own self-interest.
Randians usually argue around this problem with tautologies.
I realize this is Slashdot, so anything less than complete anarchocapitalism is no better than terrorists, but...
Terrorists generally have to inflict actual harm to get their job done, and they have very little to lose. Capitalists don't have to inflict harm, they just need to make profits (they might inflict harm upon the way). They have a lot to lose: if people get pissed off enough, something will be done about them -- probably something that ruins their business.
That's a qualitative argument. You claim it's possible for the speed reading to be incorrect, due to details of how LIDAR works. There are a lot more details about how the LIDAR gun works. Make the argument quantitative. By how much will the speed reading be incorrect for vehicles that are near or above the speed limit? (Vehicles well below the speed limit are, of course, not of interest.) It's unlikely for any useful measurement device to be perfectly accurate, but putting bounds on its accuracy is an approachable problem. There's a significant difference between a reading of 60 mph that's accurate to 0.1 mph and one that's accurate to 10 mph.
We track 90% of the near-earth objects that have a possibility of causing global catastrophe. While there's certainly room for improvement, we've actually been doing quite a lot of looking.
To give a sense of scale, global-catastrophic asteroids are 1 km in diameter; this one was 7 m.
This seems like a nonsensical conclusion -- larger objects are easier to detect, both by virtue of being larger and, since they are a potential threat, are more worthy of attention and effort.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, only the console user can install packages.
Or, any software the console user is running?
Or, perhaps, a web page that the console user is viewing through a web browser with a security vulnerability that enables remote code execution?
Or, perhaps, an ad embedded in a web page that...
You usually don't care what the variable encryption scheme is when you're cracking -- typically, there is a method of simply verifying that the password is accurate, which is what they're doing. (Brute-forcing keys is fairly foolish with modern encryption systems, but brute-forcing passwords isn't.)
He's not "the" Fat Duck guy, he's "a" Fat Duck guy. The Fat Duck guy is Heston Blumenthal.
I just think it's interesting that they chose to use a real institution.
It's NIMH: The National Institute of Mental Health
All of the electricity you produce gets used in ways that eventually result in it being heat. Solar panels also aren't currently efficient enough to cause that problem -- their albedo and efficiency are low enough that waste heat is generated by putting solar panels in place, rather than "stealing heat".
Rescaling images is very cheap.
(Seriously, how much heat is that thing going to put out?)
As much energy as it consumes. For climate models, though, direct waste heat production is negligible compared to climatological effects (e.g., CO2).
How the MBH interacts with matter is directly based on the size of its Scwartzchild radius. As this radius is significantly smaller than the atomic scale, it cannot capture atoms efficiently.
You actually picked the weak form of this argument.
Our planet is small and not particularly dense. There's only one, and something like MBH or strangelets could be fairly rare. We could be lucky.
Fortunately, there's an enormous field of stars, including large, dense neutron stars. Neutron stars are great at capturing errant particles, producing MBHes, and things like that. Looking at our estimates of the ages of these neutron stars, you can show that micro black holes cannot be responsible for stellar/planetary destruction.
This is a typical nonsense argument. You imply that because there are some things we don't know (e.g., questions to be answered by the LHC) that it's reasonably possible that we will encounter aberrant behavior that contradicts previous observation.
There are few avenues for the MBH to be incorrect. They already assume that we are wrong about Hawking radiation (otherwise an MBH would boil off immediately). The only real options are that energy conservation is violated and the LHC is able to somehow create a heavy black hole, or the gravitational pull of a MBH is somehow enormously higher than its mass-energy would permit. (As the Schwartzchild radius is directly derived from its gravitational pull, there's not really any room for this to be wrong.)
They don't fire people in government. More likely, GP is a libertarian without a job.
You are conflating providing for your own welfare with avarice.
On the game theory track, it's well-known that people actually do not choose the "optimal" strategy -- they don't act exclusively in their own self-interest.
Randians usually argue around this problem with tautologies.
I'm not sure calling exit(0) in the kernel will do what you expect.
I realize this is Slashdot, so anything less than complete anarchocapitalism is no better than terrorists, but...
Terrorists generally have to inflict actual harm to get their job done, and they have very little to lose. Capitalists don't have to inflict harm, they just need to make profits (they might inflict harm upon the way). They have a lot to lose: if people get pissed off enough, something will be done about them -- probably something that ruins their business.
Are you trying to claim that nobody has a registered handgun?
You'd think the error rate would be a lot higher, then.
Isn't it more likely that number was just made up to give a false sense of security?
Knowing NASA, no. Is there some component of your argument that isn't just baseless speculation?
This site is better, by the way: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/
The asteroid is quite unlikely to unleash any trinitrotolulene.
Someone has to pay for their gas to go answer domestic violence calls.
Someone will pay for it -- either through speeding revenue or through direct taxes.
That's a qualitative argument. You claim it's possible for the speed reading to be incorrect, due to details of how LIDAR works. There are a lot more details about how the LIDAR gun works. Make the argument quantitative. By how much will the speed reading be incorrect for vehicles that are near or above the speed limit? (Vehicles well below the speed limit are, of course, not of interest.) It's unlikely for any useful measurement device to be perfectly accurate, but putting bounds on its accuracy is an approachable problem. There's a significant difference between a reading of 60 mph that's accurate to 0.1 mph and one that's accurate to 10 mph.
We track 90% of the near-earth objects that have a possibility of causing global catastrophe. While there's certainly room for improvement, we've actually been doing quite a lot of looking.
To give a sense of scale, global-catastrophic asteroids are 1 km in diameter; this one was 7 m.
Maybe your problem is that you shop at Best Buy for humor?
This seems like a nonsensical conclusion -- larger objects are easier to detect, both by virtue of being larger and, since they are a potential threat, are more worthy of attention and effort.
If you do ever get a subpoena, don't smugly assume you know so much more about technology than people in the justice system. It won't go well for you.