A rocket does not push against anything. There are no external forces acting upon the rocket and therefore the total momentum is constant and the acceleration of the mass center (=rocket + exhaust) is zero.
The reason for the rocket moving forward is simply the conservation of momentum. The exhaust gases move in one direction and since they carry momentum, the rocket must compensate for this by moving in an opposite direction carrying an equal amount of momentum.
The rocket does not "push" against its exhaust gases in space or against the air or ground on the Earth. In fact, rockets work best in space where there is no air resistance!
I've never understood the people who cry for the preservation of the "purity" of the language. A language is a living thing. It's in its nature to change and to be influenced by the other languages. As long as you get understood, there's nothing wrong with using an impure language (riddled with "foreign" words, for instance).
Stating that a language should be protected from outside influences is, in fact, almost as screwed up as trying to preserve the "purity of a race" by force.
Perhaps so in this particular incarnation of the Internet.
Just wait for the Internet 2 and the wonderful tools it provides for the corporations to track and control the flow of information...
Why is your video off? Are you hiding something?
on
Mobile Videophone
·
· Score: 1
I agree.
I also fear that when the videophones become more commonplace, keeping the video feed switched off will be seen at least as impolite or even outright suspicious.
I'm all for genetically modified food and, later as technology gets sophisticated enough, genetic engineering of humans and animals. Actually, the world's first
genetically altered baby was recently born in the UK.
In my mind, the evolution creeps to imperfection.
Saying that we should not use our knowledge to fix the things the evolution has screwed up is like calling airplanes "frankenbirds" and ranting about how the man was never meant to fly.
The plot wasn't that bad and the atmosphere part was OK, but still it was just a bunch of people trapped in a spaceship. No real social or political aspect in the movie.
The dreary atmosphere of Seven combined with the madness-awaits-just-around-the-next-corner -feeling of Twin Peaks
An overpopulated society going out of control as in Strange Days and Blade Runner (throw in some Burton's weird gothic vision).
The wardrobe and action direction of Matrix.
An original plot that really makes you think "what the hell is going on?!" without it being intentionally obfuscated. Something like what Philip K. Dick's wrote.
Director? I don't know. Perhaps I'd give Oliver Stone a chance...
Scientific accuracy isn't that important and, in fact, I'd be looking forward to seeing a sci-fi movie that concetrated more on the sociological and ethical problems caused by the advanced technology and politicised corporatism, than some high tech action adventure.
The only working method (taking things like freenet into account) that I can think of would be the closing up of both the hardware and software that's used in connecting to the net.
Integrate the network adapter into the motherboard and make it add a unique and traceable (who bought it, physical location, packet contents hint,...) ID into every packet.
No more self-assembled computers. Access to the stuff inside the chassis would be allowed only to authorized personnel. Just like heroin can be manufactured and sold legally today but only by the authorized people in the drug industry. Any unauthorized access would be a criminal offence.
Only authorized Operating Systems and device drivers allowed. Programming tools would also become controlled material.
A human language should be specified in the same manner as a programming language?! Get real.
People aren't computers, we can understand fuzzy input quite well. Actually, I don't know how much you like reading, but ambiquous language and new words are used with great effect in some of the greatest books ever written (Joyce's Odyssey, for instance). There's so much more into written word than just structure and words!
Bend the language and if you don't get it to do what you want, go ahead and break it!
Laziness and ignorance should accepted? Yes! Definitely as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else!
At work I strive for perfection and do not tolarete laziness or ignorance from anyone. Why? Because we work with class A lethal chemicals. I don't want to get killed by some ignorant and careless moron with no self-preservation instinct.
At home and in my private life, however, I am a complete slob. I do things I want to do, in exactly the way I want to do them and I'll fight anyone who tries to force me to do otherwise. I pay my bills, meet people, clean up, eat, exercise, sleep, read, write and speak as I bloody well like.
People like you who insist on making sure that others behave in a way that is "proper behaviour" even when there is no good reason for forcing the issue, are just unnecessarily burdening theirs and others' lives with useless rules.
This sounds a lot like a book I'd like to give my parents as a small Christmas present. I've tried to explain to them what Open Source -- or Free Software, to be more precise -- really means but I've got an impression they still think it's just yet another youngsters' idealistic fad (although I'm close to 30 years old;-).
If this book manages to demonstrate why software and ideas are different from real-life things (scarcity) and should therefore be free, I'm going to buy it.
I am so fucking sick of seeing the line "Get a life." These people
always seem to think that if someone's life doesn't meet their standards
then they obviously do not have a life. Fuck them. In my opinion anyone
who puts forth this line is an utter idiot with no real conception of
what they condemn others of not having. Maybe we like wallowing in our
angst. Maybe we actually deal with life better by living this way. Does
this ever occur to them? I hate life so much sometimes but I also love
it to death at others. I am so fucking full of angst sometimes but at
others I am at the top of it all. That is the reason I have never seriously
considered killing myself. It's sorta like golf. I keep playing life
for those occasional awsome shots which keep me going.
It's all about who wields the tools of political control.
Since in democratic societies the government is (still) given its mandate by the body politic, it is imperative for the politicians to have control over the electorate and their political opponenents.
Politicians first job is to get (re-)elected. Everything else is secondary. Now, if you were a politician and given a chance to control these wonderful new tools like the net and widespread mobile phone network, wouldn't you at least consider abusing the system to find dirt on your political enemies (just in case they have something...) and to find out what the public in your district thinks in general.
It's not a conspiracy of ultra evil people. It's just ordinary people who want to retain their grasp on power. As I have pointed out before, in an age when technology makes it possible to run surveillance on every citizen with minimal human resources, every Joe Sixpack becomes an interesting subject to the people with power. Stasi did it with brute force, but now the technology makes similar data harvesting effortless and automatic. It's data mining in the real world.
When I first bought a HIFI VHS system and was able to watch movies and TV programs in stereo, it was great. Soon after I bought a DVD and a surround sound system with five speakers and was completely blown away by the sound quality.
If and when DVD players and multiple speakers systems become more commonplace, it wouldn't suprise me to see audio move from stereo to quadrophonic sound, too.
It's time to get organized and impose the slashdot effect on the European Commission.
I for one am going to write a snailmail letter both to my representative in the Parliament and the Commission (lucky to have one) and urge him investigate this matter and act against software patents. I've got a couple of friends whom I've managed to get to act as well.
There's no scarcity. If you have a copy of the product, you can copy it infinitely without anyone losing a penny.
By setting a price on software, corporations themselves have created the piracy problem! Just like drug related crime in our narcophobic society has been created by running the drug usage underground.
You have an opportunity now to stand up for freedom. You can announce "We don't support the PS2, because Sony refuses to allow us to support it with free software!"
The text above is practically his point. I don't see any pedantic about this piece. It's very clear and concise and I agree with it.
At first I was concerned that this will be another case of RMS spouting free software dogma with religious fervor, but after reading the entire discussion, that's not the case at all.
For once he's quite lucid about the fact that what he believes and what others believe are equally important.
I've played computer games, violent and non-violent alike, since I was 7 years old. When I grew a little older, I started collecting uncensored horror/gore films like Bloodsucking Freaks, Necromantik (a mass murder/necrophilia flick by Jörg Buttgereit), Texas Chainsaw Massacre, etc. I can pretty much say that violence on TV screen or monitor does not affect me. I've become sensitized -- to simulated violence.
Still, whenever I get into a fight (rarely) or see two people fighting live, the adrenaline starts pumping and I feel like throwing up. And that's just for a simple fist fight. No knives or guns.
I am most definitely not sensitized to live violence!
As the subject says: this is comparing apples and oranges. If someone get kicks out of killing real people, he/she is most definitely gone beyond of what mere simulated violence can accomplish.
Slashdot Mirror
Not making the mainstream?
Failing to gain total world domination?
Linux won't go anywhere even if it doesn't replace Windows.
The reason for the rocket moving forward is simply the conservation of momentum. The exhaust gases move in one direction and since they carry momentum, the rocket must compensate for this by moving in an opposite direction carrying an equal amount of momentum.
The rocket does not "push" against its exhaust gases in space or against the air or ground on the Earth. In fact, rockets work best in space where there is no air resistance!
Have you seen Jacob's Ladder?
You might like it. I've always been fascinated by the concept of "waking up dead" as in some sense told by the Sixth Sense and Jacob's Ladder.
I've never understood the people who cry for the preservation of the "purity" of the language. A language is a living thing. It's in its nature to change and to be influenced by the other languages. As long as you get understood, there's nothing wrong with using an impure language (riddled with "foreign" words, for instance).
Stating that a language should be protected from outside influences is, in fact, almost as screwed up as trying to preserve the "purity of a race" by force.
Just wait for the Internet 2 and the wonderful tools it provides for the corporations to track and control the flow of information...
I also fear that when the videophones become more commonplace, keeping the video feed switched off will be seen at least as impolite or even outright suspicious.
In my mind, the evolution creeps to imperfection.
Saying that we should not use our knowledge to fix the things the evolution has screwed up is like calling airplanes "frankenbirds" and ranting about how the man was never meant to fly.
I've already snailmailed my Euro MP about software patents and I'm planning to write to her again after the decision is made.
The plot wasn't that bad and the atmosphere part was OK, but still it was just a bunch of people trapped in a spaceship. No real social or political aspect in the movie.
Something like this:
Scientific accuracy isn't that important and, in fact, I'd be looking forward to seeing a sci-fi movie that concetrated more on the sociological and ethical problems caused by the advanced technology and politicised corporatism, than some high tech action adventure.
The only working method (taking things like freenet into account) that I can think of would be the closing up of both the hardware and software that's used in connecting to the net.
Integrate the network adapter into the motherboard and make it add a unique and traceable (who bought it, physical location, packet contents hint,...) ID into every packet.
No more self-assembled computers. Access to the stuff inside the chassis would be allowed only to authorized personnel. Just like heroin can be manufactured and sold legally today but only by the authorized people in the drug industry. Any unauthorized access would be a criminal offence.
Only authorized Operating Systems and device drivers allowed. Programming tools would also become controlled material.
People aren't computers, we can understand fuzzy input quite well. Actually, I don't know how much you like reading, but ambiquous language and new words are used with great effect in some of the greatest books ever written (Joyce's Odyssey, for instance). There's so much more into written word than just structure and words!
Bend the language and if you don't get it to do what you want, go ahead and break it!
Laziness and ignorance should accepted? Yes! Definitely as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else!
At work I strive for perfection and do not tolarete laziness or ignorance from anyone. Why? Because we work with class A lethal chemicals. I don't want to get killed by some ignorant and careless moron with no self-preservation instinct.
At home and in my private life, however, I am a complete slob. I do things I want to do, in exactly the way I want to do them and I'll fight anyone who tries to force me to do otherwise. I pay my bills, meet people, clean up, eat, exercise, sleep, read, write and speak as I bloody well like.
People like you who insist on making sure that others behave in a way that is "proper behaviour" even when there is no good reason for forcing the issue, are just unnecessarily burdening theirs and others' lives with useless rules.
If this book manages to demonstrate why software and ideas are different from real-life things (scarcity) and should therefore be free, I'm going to buy it.
So what would you expect them to do? Roll over? Of course not. They'll fight to the end and does that make them evil? No.
I am so fucking sick of seeing the line "Get a life." These people always seem to think that if someone's life doesn't meet their standards then they obviously do not have a life. Fuck them. In my opinion anyone who puts forth this line is an utter idiot with no real conception of what they condemn others of not having. Maybe we like wallowing in our angst. Maybe we actually deal with life better by living this way. Does this ever occur to them? I hate life so much sometimes but I also love it to death at others. I am so fucking full of angst sometimes but at others I am at the top of it all. That is the reason I have never seriously considered killing myself. It's sorta like golf. I keep playing life for those occasional awsome shots which keep me going.
Really? Check out Dr. Death.
Since in democratic societies the government is (still) given its mandate by the body politic, it is imperative for the politicians to have control over the electorate and their political opponenents.
Politicians first job is to get (re-)elected. Everything else is secondary. Now, if you were a politician and given a chance to control these wonderful new tools like the net and widespread mobile phone network, wouldn't you at least consider abusing the system to find dirt on your political enemies (just in case they have something...) and to find out what the public in your district thinks in general.
It's not a conspiracy of ultra evil people. It's just ordinary people who want to retain their grasp on power. As I have pointed out before, in an age when technology makes it possible to run surveillance on every citizen with minimal human resources, every Joe Sixpack becomes an interesting subject to the people with power. Stasi did it with brute force, but now the technology makes similar data harvesting effortless and automatic. It's data mining in the real world.
Excellent point.
When I first bought a HIFI VHS system and was able to watch movies and TV programs in stereo, it was great. Soon after I bought a DVD and a surround sound system with five speakers and was completely blown away by the sound quality.
If and when DVD players and multiple speakers systems become more commonplace, it wouldn't suprise me to see audio move from stereo to quadrophonic sound, too.
I for one am going to write a snailmail letter both to my representative in the Parliament and the Commission (lucky to have one) and urge him investigate this matter and act against software patents. I've got a couple of friends whom I've managed to get to act as well.
The time to act is now!
But why should it cost anything?
There's no scarcity. If you have a copy of the product, you can copy it infinitely without anyone losing a penny.
By setting a price on software, corporations themselves have created the piracy problem! Just like drug related crime in our narcophobic society has been created by running the drug usage underground.
The text above is practically his point. I don't see any pedantic about this piece. It's very clear and concise and I agree with it.
For once he's quite lucid about the fact that what he believes and what others believe are equally important.
That really is the director's name.
I got the film's name wrong though. It's Nekromantik.
Still, whenever I get into a fight (rarely) or see two people fighting live, the adrenaline starts pumping and I feel like throwing up. And that's just for a simple fist fight. No knives or guns.
I am most definitely not sensitized to live violence!
As the subject says: this is comparing apples and oranges. If someone get kicks out of killing real people, he/she is most definitely gone beyond of what mere simulated violence can accomplish.