The sun is our root provider of life on Earth, and has been since the dawn of our time; we could not exist without the Sun, and therefore the Sun provides us with life. The fact that the Sun emits it's rays in every direction possible, makes it quite funny that humanity believes there *might* be life everywhere, when in strict archetypical fact, this systemic nourishment proves that stars shed life-giving energy as a systemic fundamental and therefore these ecosystems are much larger than human perception currently understands. We can not see the forest for the trees, it would seem. We are like microbes, in a space-like fluid, are we not?
Of course I'm only going philisophical on you, but I must admit, that as soon as humanity can understand the Sun's ecosystem, only then will they be able to perceive it and accept it. (so like in a few hundred years?)
As soon as NASA drills down, this lake will become a part of our ecosystem, and subject to our deficits and benefits; the only thing keeping it separated is about to be breached, which in the interest of science is very interesting, yet still impossible to prevent. Like Mars, we are going to leave trace elements of our world behind, in an effort to understand this system. I'm not suggesting any immediate contamination, but slight contamination is going to happen no matter how NASA proceeds.
As for the Mars theory of life existing in frozen climates, the funny thing is when the fiery residents of the Sun, laugh and realize we puny humans can exist on the frozen climate of Earth! Their probes will be made of molton sunspots that will sadly destroy much of our ecosystem in efforts to understand it, or at least that is the premise of a sci-fi book I may write in the near future. My point is that life is all a matter of perspective, not that I truly believe there is life on the Sun (although there must be).
Ahh but then I would have to submit my email address, wouldn't I? Catch 22; I will have to create a stand-alone PHP system that uses a MySQL db. If someone wants to convert it, that's cool too. Simple enough, really; and I will also passthrough the email to verify the user's identity.
No matter how you slice it, this is bad news. New adverts means new browser interstitials, interrupted surfing or attention grabbers, or at the worst it means more data/advert integration; that is like "paid content", or similar to the much-loathed paid television programming. Content for adverts is much like what we're seeing on television today, so this is in no way useful and does not endear me further to the plights of commercial internet interests. This is not the magic bullet, people. It's just that the net is relying on the age-old standby that television has, since inception.
Nope. I'm saying it's immoral to shrug spam off in public forums, because it's the act of shrugging off spam that has made spam so prevalent today. Spam is serious and Linux devs should be fully protected from it from a systemic level; online publication of email addresses encourages spam and this practice is archaic and must be stopped, regardless of how much karma I lose today.:-)
Okay! I'll write something to handle this, and post the source code at my site next week when I can free up some time. Maybe I'll write a changelog writing app and put in some extra features so the Linux team uses it (and anyone else)...
> Uhm, a day? I'd say about 20 minutes + adding the various email addresses to a db...
Yes, but creating code to allow users to add themselves and perform email redirects using the form might take longer than 20minutes. For real shit-stick code, how about 4min? For industry ready code, I never take less than a day on any app (just my ethics, sirrah).
> Er... so you can be contacted if there is a problem with your code? Don't use your primary email address, dumbass.
You would think that the people developing the best project in the world would at least have the knowledge of how to become inaccessible to spam. There are billions of other ways to be contacted. How about a form that lets you email each user on the project? That would only take about a day to code and a few to perfect. So I'm not a dumbass (thank you very much) You, however, might be.
With all the Spam problems going on these days, you would think that the Linux changelog would not publish email addys. Why should someone have to display their email addy to work on Linux? To me it seems very counter-productive, and it may shed light as to why Linux users wish to stop Spam, instead of simply becoming inaccessible to it. I've thought about working on Linux before, but this is the only thing stopping me as it stands.
I'm applying for the regional Leader of the Universe position slated for 2008, that many of you might not know about if you aren't in the know at Google. My salary will be $2k/second and my office will be on Alpha Centauri, complete with Rapid Human Download back and forth from Earth on holidays, as Google's Alpha Centauri operations cater mostly to outer-world beings from the Master of Orion xeno-gaggle.
"The client will be completely undetectable and unremovable by even the most skilled hacker."
This statement reminded me of the "hacker" from the movie The Core, who asked for an unlimited supply of hotpockets and Xena tapes. But I've seen this post before, or is it deja vu? Fact is, any system that can be built, can be bypassed, so I don't know what the hell he's talking about.
Apparently, subliminal messages have little effect. Maybe you're just looking for the placebo effect, in which case it likely doesn't matter *how* you record your subliminal tape, just as long as *you* beleive!
I think I was saying that relying on momentum is the flaw of rockets, imho. Relying on any kind of force is the problem because of F=MA, you can't add back to the system, so the force expended is used up and the rockets fall short, or you would require enough energy to power a sun to go longer distances, which is unlikely. Yes rockets build up great momentum through space, but it's still not where it could be in terms of getting from point A to point B. Energy conversions might be the way; convert mass to energy on a total scale so that there is no mass (only force and accelleration), and that's when you get maximum potential, right?
But even then it's a flawed system of long distance travel, imho, because it relies on theories made from one point in space only; we need to make theories from billions of points in space (ie: live on billions of different worlds) before we can truly master celestial travel. So, uh, see you in 10,000 years.
RIAA: File sharing hurts our beloved industry. Student A: Have you heard that new song from ? It's awesome!!!! Student B: Yeah I'm going to see them next week in LA!! Road Trip!!! Student C: I'm going to buy that album they put out last year. Student D: Me too! Student A: Yeah it was largely underrated, I guess. Harvard Prof Guy: Consumption of music increases dramatically with the introduction of file sharing... RIAA: Harvard SUCKS!
They don't work by pushing against anything. I didn't suggest they did. I said they would work better if they had something to push from. When you launch a rocket, the particles eject against a hard surface that resists. What I was saying was that diffusion into a void is not a very efficient theory from which to use as a ray into the deep future; we need to refine it heavily, and that includes thoughts pertaining to Ion travel... it's just inefficient. Yes it's more efficient than what we have, but that's not saying much.
BRW, you're also dead wrong with your swinging fist example.
Go ask a fighter and see what they tell you. I'm sure you'd find that *you* are wrong. Why? Your body does more when you miss, and therefore you exhert more energy... more energy therefore dissipates. Why do you do more? Because you are not hitting anything. When a fighter connects, the connection splits the energy 1/2 into the fighter hit and 1/2 back up the arm of the fighter... so he gets 1/2 his energy back with each hit and loses it all with each miss.
The flaw with rocket science is that there is no energy recovery, which would enable rockets to go much further. We have to learn how to break Newton's laws in order to achive this kind of recovery, not follow them.:-)
they work by throwing mass out the back of the rocket I'm sorry, but where in what I said did you think I *wasn't* saying this? Having a reduction of mass is limited space travel, because your rocket needs to release particles into a void; and therefore quite limited, even using Ions.
That's my point... if you are pushing particles into a void, you're not getting maximum thrust. That's my only point, and I can't understand why nobody gets it... *sigh*
Why do rockets move faster when they are pressed against the ground? Why not launch them from a flotilla? Because the ground acts as a brace. Any first year physics student understands that...
Furthermore, physics on Earth is far different from physics in space. We are arrogant people that believe we know everything, when we are just knats experiencing a few seconds of life before keeling over.
Okay, how about the principle of rocket propulsion. It's just flawed in space, because in space the force exerted is unreasonable, due to the law of diffusion; in that particles expanding into a vaccuum require far greater effort to push a vehicle at speeds required (safely), that the kind of speed required is impossible due to thrust dissipation. For example, if I swing at you and hit, I exert less energy than if I swing at you and miss. Rockets are pushing objects but the rockets are applying force against nothing at all. They would be better to push against objects, like maybe grapple through space somehow. Therefore rocket science is flawed in non-atmospheric places, where pressure is non-existant. Therefore the correct method of travel is by finding a way to convert mass to energy and transfer energy (like sunshine) to another star system, and maybe harness wormholes or other celestial phenomena along the way. That's all... it's not rocket science!!!:)
> "Infinite travel"? How do these things get modded insightful?
Likely the same way gripes about moderation are modded as Troll.
To clarify what I meant by Infinite travel, I will say that travelling through space is the problem; we are still very point-a-to-point-b in our logic. The correct method of space travel is likely developing a system that would enable us to find a coordinate and APPEAR there (kinda like Dune). That's what I meant by infinite space travel.... when you are going point-a-to-point-b, you have resources to look at that are all very finite. While these things may seem strange or like science fiction to you, they are possible; because in the 50's if you told them we would put robots on Mars, they'd have Trolled you down as being a fricking nutbar too.
Google has a very smart team, a team who understand their market and cater to their every need. What I think is the best feature of Google is that they cater to their end-user, not their financial backers. To Google, it's important to please searchers, more so than advertisers. That makes me warm and fuzzy.
I would also point out, being a programmer myself, that reducing the bandwidth in each search is a positive goal for Google in cost reduction, and a positive side-effect to the reduction, is a much faster searching experience. Every bit counts when you have the traffic Google does.
Put them together and you have a winning team, with a winning service, and profit will ensue.
Sorry for sounding like a fan-boy, but I just can't say anything bad about Google, except maybe that the name Google is becoming annoying/overused, much like the over-play curse afforded to successful musicians.
Let's face it, the use of rockets and pressure-based engines is why we can't really get to deep space yet. Until we find a really safe method for infinite travel (mass transfer) I have to agree that robotic probes are the way to go, until infinite travel is possible. Flying hulks of mass through space, and requiring that these ships support human life is the bottleneck for research. We don't need people anymore, whereas in the 60's we did.
Soon we'll know all about the space around us, and maybe then we'll find some intelligent extraterrestrial life to sponge from!:)
I believe the type of code used in any online system has to be balanced against ease of use, extensibility and speed. When you really have to pay attention is when you've got the traffic Slashdot has... That's when every nanosecond counts, not on some blog site that gets 800 hits a day.:-)
So for me, I code for quick neutral-coder interpretation, ease, and portability. I don't use switches that much, as I prefer if/elseif/else combos, as they are easier to manage and they take less of a hit than switches. Another thing I like doing, is finding alternate methods to using if statements; for example I had a page that checked the values to rule out hack attempts. It was growing to a large size of checks that I became concerned of the length of the whole if-loop. It hit me that due to the nature of the data, running in_array and stuffing the accepted values into an array ($this[]= 'value54443';$this[]= 'value54444';) sped things up significantly, with the added benefit of being easy to add accepted values. Liberal use of Unset() also helps.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
> (although there must be) Please explain that?
The sun is our root provider of life on Earth, and has been since the dawn of our time; we could not exist without the Sun, and therefore the Sun provides us with life. The fact that the Sun emits it's rays in every direction possible, makes it quite funny that humanity believes there *might* be life everywhere, when in strict archetypical fact, this systemic nourishment proves that stars shed life-giving energy as a systemic fundamental and therefore these ecosystems are much larger than human perception currently understands. We can not see the forest for the trees, it would seem. We are like microbes, in a space-like fluid, are we not?
Of course I'm only going philisophical on you, but I must admit, that as soon as humanity can understand the Sun's ecosystem, only then will they be able to perceive it and accept it. (so like in a few hundred years?)
Microcosm/macrocosm still applies.
As soon as NASA drills down, this lake will become a part of our ecosystem, and subject to our deficits and benefits; the only thing keeping it separated is about to be breached, which in the interest of science is very interesting, yet still impossible to prevent. Like Mars, we are going to leave trace elements of our world behind, in an effort to understand this system. I'm not suggesting any immediate contamination, but slight contamination is going to happen no matter how NASA proceeds.
As for the Mars theory of life existing in frozen climates, the funny thing is when the fiery residents of the Sun, laugh and realize we puny humans can exist on the frozen climate of Earth! Their probes will be made of molton sunspots that will sadly destroy much of our ecosystem in efforts to understand it, or at least that is the premise of a sci-fi book I may write in the near future. My point is that life is all a matter of perspective, not that I truly believe there is life on the Sun (although there must be).
Ahh but then I would have to submit my email address, wouldn't I? Catch 22; I will have to create a stand-alone PHP system that uses a MySQL db. If someone wants to convert it, that's cool too. Simple enough, really; and I will also passthrough the email to verify the user's identity.
No matter how you slice it, this is bad news. New adverts means new browser interstitials, interrupted surfing or attention grabbers, or at the worst it means more data/advert integration; that is like "paid content", or similar to the much-loathed paid television programming. Content for adverts is much like what we're seeing on television today, so this is in no way useful and does not endear me further to the plights of commercial internet interests. This is not the magic bullet, people. It's just that the net is relying on the age-old standby that television has, since inception.
Nope. I'm saying it's immoral to shrug spam off in public forums, because it's the act of shrugging off spam that has made spam so prevalent today. Spam is serious and Linux devs should be fully protected from it from a systemic level; online publication of email addresses encourages spam and this practice is archaic and must be stopped, regardless of how much karma I lose today. :-)
> If this is stopping you from working on Linux, you must not be very interested.
Any argument that lessens the horrible impact of spam, is an argument against moral computing (and therefore moot, imho).
> Go on then, scratch your own itch.
Okay! I'll write something to handle this, and post the source code at my site next week when I can free up some time. Maybe I'll write a changelog writing app and put in some extra features so the Linux team uses it (and anyone else)...
> Uhm, a day? I'd say about 20 minutes + adding the various email addresses to a db...
Yes, but creating code to allow users to add themselves and perform email redirects using the form might take longer than 20minutes. For real shit-stick code, how about 4min? For industry ready code, I never take less than a day on any app (just my ethics, sirrah).
> Er... so you can be contacted if there is a problem with your code? Don't use your primary email address, dumbass.
You would think that the people developing the best project in the world would at least have the knowledge of how to become inaccessible to spam. There are billions of other ways to be contacted. How about a form that lets you email each user on the project? That would only take about a day to code and a few to perfect. So I'm not a dumbass (thank you very much) You, however, might be.
With all the Spam problems going on these days, you would think that the Linux changelog would not publish email addys. Why should someone have to display their email addy to work on Linux? To me it seems very counter-productive, and it may shed light as to why Linux users wish to stop Spam, instead of simply becoming inaccessible to it. I've thought about working on Linux before, but this is the only thing stopping me as it stands.
... Microsoft stock sinks as $2bil walks swiftly out the door. Today is indeed a good day!
I'm applying for the regional Leader of the Universe position slated for 2008, that many of you might not know about if you aren't in the know at Google. My salary will be $2k/second and my office will be on Alpha Centauri, complete with Rapid Human Download back and forth from Earth on holidays, as Google's Alpha Centauri operations cater mostly to outer-world beings from the Master of Orion xeno-gaggle.
"The client will be completely undetectable and unremovable by even the most skilled hacker."
This statement reminded me of the "hacker" from the movie The Core, who asked for an unlimited supply of hotpockets and Xena tapes. But I've seen this post before, or is it deja vu? Fact is, any system that can be built, can be bypassed, so I don't know what the hell he's talking about.
Apparently, subliminal messages have little effect. Maybe you're just looking for the placebo effect, in which case it likely doesn't matter *how* you record your subliminal tape, just as long as *you* beleive!
So essentially, we should unplug all the cables and just get a bunch of shithawks?
Well, at least they didn't choose Florida!
I think I was saying that relying on momentum is the flaw of rockets, imho. Relying on any kind of force is the problem because of F=MA, you can't add back to the system, so the force expended is used up and the rockets fall short, or you would require enough energy to power a sun to go longer distances, which is unlikely. Yes rockets build up great momentum through space, but it's still not where it could be in terms of getting from point A to point B. Energy conversions might be the way; convert mass to energy on a total scale so that there is no mass (only force and accelleration), and that's when you get maximum potential, right?
But even then it's a flawed system of long distance travel, imho, because it relies on theories made from one point in space only; we need to make theories from billions of points in space (ie: live on billions of different worlds) before we can truly master celestial travel. So, uh, see you in 10,000 years.
RIAA: File sharing hurts our beloved industry.
Student A: Have you heard that new song from ? It's awesome!!!!
Student B: Yeah I'm going to see them next week in LA!! Road Trip!!!
Student C: I'm going to buy that album they put out last year.
Student D: Me too!
Student A: Yeah it was largely underrated, I guess.
Harvard Prof Guy: Consumption of music increases dramatically with the introduction of file sharing...
RIAA: Harvard SUCKS!
They don't work by pushing against anything.
:-)
I didn't suggest they did. I said they would work better if they had something to push from. When you launch a rocket, the particles eject against a hard surface that resists. What I was saying was that diffusion into a void is not a very efficient theory from which to use as a ray into the deep future; we need to refine it heavily, and that includes thoughts pertaining to Ion travel... it's just inefficient. Yes it's more efficient than what we have, but that's not saying much.
BRW, you're also dead wrong with your swinging fist example.
Go ask a fighter and see what they tell you. I'm sure you'd find that *you* are wrong. Why? Your body does more when you miss, and therefore you exhert more energy... more energy therefore dissipates. Why do you do more? Because you are not hitting anything. When a fighter connects, the connection splits the energy 1/2 into the fighter hit and 1/2 back up the arm of the fighter... so he gets 1/2 his energy back with each hit and loses it all with each miss.
The flaw with rocket science is that there is no energy recovery, which would enable rockets to go much further. We have to learn how to break Newton's laws in order to achive this kind of recovery, not follow them.
they work by throwing mass out the back of the rocket
I'm sorry, but where in what I said did you think I *wasn't* saying this? Having a reduction of mass is limited space travel, because your rocket needs to release particles into a void; and therefore quite limited, even using Ions.
That's my point... if you are pushing particles into a void, you're not getting maximum thrust. That's my only point, and I can't understand why nobody gets it... *sigh*
Why do rockets move faster when they are pressed against the ground? Why not launch them from a flotilla? Because the ground acts as a brace. Any first year physics student understands that...
Furthermore, physics on Earth is far different from physics in space. We are arrogant people that believe we know everything, when we are just knats experiencing a few seconds of life before keeling over.
Okay, how about the principle of rocket propulsion. It's just flawed in space, because in space the force exerted is unreasonable, due to the law of diffusion; in that particles expanding into a vaccuum require far greater effort to push a vehicle at speeds required (safely), that the kind of speed required is impossible due to thrust dissipation. For example, if I swing at you and hit, I exert less energy than if I swing at you and miss. Rockets are pushing objects but the rockets are applying force against nothing at all. They would be better to push against objects, like maybe grapple through space somehow. Therefore rocket science is flawed in non-atmospheric places, where pressure is non-existant. Therefore the correct method of travel is by finding a way to convert mass to energy and transfer energy (like sunshine) to another star system, and maybe harness wormholes or other celestial phenomena along the way. That's all... it's not rocket science!!! :)
> "Infinite travel"? How do these things get modded insightful?
Likely the same way gripes about moderation are modded as Troll.
To clarify what I meant by Infinite travel, I will say that travelling through space is the problem; we are still very point-a-to-point-b in our logic. The correct method of space travel is likely developing a system that would enable us to find a coordinate and APPEAR there (kinda like Dune). That's what I meant by infinite space travel.... when you are going point-a-to-point-b, you have resources to look at that are all very finite. While these things may seem strange or like science fiction to you, they are possible; because in the 50's if you told them we would put robots on Mars, they'd have Trolled you down as being a fricking nutbar too.
Google has a very smart team, a team who understand their market and cater to their every need. What I think is the best feature of Google is that they cater to their end-user, not their financial backers. To Google, it's important to please searchers, more so than advertisers. That makes me warm and fuzzy.
I would also point out, being a programmer myself, that reducing the bandwidth in each search is a positive goal for Google in cost reduction, and a positive side-effect to the reduction, is a much faster searching experience. Every bit counts when you have the traffic Google does.
Put them together and you have a winning team, with a winning service, and profit will ensue.
Sorry for sounding like a fan-boy, but I just can't say anything bad about Google, except maybe that the name Google is becoming annoying/overused, much like the over-play curse afforded to successful musicians.
Let's face it, the use of rockets and pressure-based engines is why we can't really get to deep space yet. Until we find a really safe method for infinite travel (mass transfer) I have to agree that robotic probes are the way to go, until infinite travel is possible. Flying hulks of mass through space, and requiring that these ships support human life is the bottleneck for research. We don't need people anymore, whereas in the 60's we did.
:)
Soon we'll know all about the space around us, and maybe then we'll find some intelligent extraterrestrial life to sponge from!
I believe the type of code used in any online system has to be balanced against ease of use, extensibility and speed. When you really have to pay attention is when you've got the traffic Slashdot has... That's when every nanosecond counts, not on some blog site that gets 800 hits a day. :-)
:-)
So for me, I code for quick neutral-coder interpretation, ease, and portability. I don't use switches that much, as I prefer if/elseif/else combos, as they are easier to manage and they take less of a hit than switches. Another thing I like doing, is finding alternate methods to using if statements; for example I had a page that checked the values to rule out hack attempts. It was growing to a large size of checks that I became concerned of the length of the whole if-loop. It hit me that due to the nature of the data, running in_array and stuffing the accepted values into an array ($this[]= 'value54443';$this[]= 'value54444';) sped things up significantly, with the added benefit of being easy to add accepted values. Liberal use of Unset() also helps.