Something I've wondered about this is: if you take a rotating mass, like a figure skater's spinning body, or the earth, and you increase the radius of some of that mass from the center of mass, by extending their arms, or bringing mass up to the top of a space elevator, you slow the rotation. What kind of effect would slowing the rotation of the earth have on it? (from, say, a climate or geological perspective) and how much mass would it take to have this effect? Also, would it be a cumulative effect? ie. you raise 100 tons and slow the rotation of the earth by 10^-30 m/s^2, and set the 100 tons "free" from the tether: would the rotation return to normal, or would you have irrovecably lost that momentum?
I apologize in advance for fucking up any of the terminology... I'm obviously not a physicist....
Not true. Given the same technology, engineering, etc, a large rocket will have the same payload-to-fuel ratio as a small rocket. If it helps, trying thinking of a large rocket as two small rockets strapped together. (I found that helped me get around the incorrect intuitive notion that heavy things fall faster than light things.)
take a rocket that weighs in at a few thousand tons (50% or more of which is fuel), and is capable of lifting 1000kg... double it's lift capacity and suddenly you've doubled the amount of fuel required... oh wait... the fuel makes up most of the weight doesn't it? suddenly you've got to redesign your whole rocket because now you need even more fuel to get enough lift to carry the fuel that you added to carry the extra weight:S
Getting more out of your space program isn't as simple as just strapping another rocket, or adding more fuel...
There's actually not a helluva lot of distinction to be drawn between official and unofficial wars where the U.S. is concerned. Though I'll concede that no US ground troops were ever in Afghanistan in any official capacity, or in any way that could have, through combat, made a difference. The U.S. did, however, offer support to the various warlords in Afghanistan, to aid them in pushing the Soviets out. Once the Soviets were pushed out of the country, the U.S. dropped Afghanistan like a bad habit. The U.S. also never put any one group of warlords in power... that was the problem, they just left and the warlords began to fight amongst themselves for control of the country, and it's lucrative poppy fields. The Taliban eventually emerged as the ruling faction... and Bin Laden said "thank you" to the U.S. of A. for all it's support during the soviet occupation, as he was one of the freedom fighters that you guys trained and then dropped... much like the training that's going on in Iraq right now... it is all for a good cause, just like it was then.
Because of this, I'm trying to assert that there's not much difference between meddling and invading. I'd put a couple of paychecks, at least, on a similar situation arising in Iraq if the U.S. simply pulled out.
I didn't really make the presumption that no one would step in... I'm sure Iran would jump in there post haste. I will put this question to you though: would you, personally, feel comfortable with the state of the world if the U.S. pulled out of Iraq and Iran took it over?
I never claimed that it would be terrorists or Saddam's family. What I claimed was that it would likely be someone at least as bad as Saddam. In which case, they'd likely sponsor terrorist activities towards the U.S. (that definitely seems to be in vogue over there at the moment...) The alternate "claim" was that the country would self-destruct, a scenario that is all too likely; it's basically what led to the Taliban controlling Afghanistan after you guys pulled out in the late 70s. In this case, the odds would be high that most citizens of what is now Iraq would have severely decimated families. My guess (and yes, here's where you've got me, this is pure speculation) is that these survivors would be rather pissed off about their losses and blame all their woes upon the U.S..... Again, this laying of blame at your feet seems to be in vogue over there.
I'm not trying to suggest that I embrace Bush's foreign policy, or that his plan (or lack thereof) gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside... but what I am trying to say is that it's a damned sight better than doing nothing. The last thing the world needs is another breeding ground for terrorists...
As for your comment that you've meddled and left many times before and it's never happened, I implore you to read about the country of Afghanistan in its post-Soviet occupation days. You guys basically gave the majority of these "freedom fighters" their start. Please please please don't pull out now and leave the rest of the world holding the bag....
I wasn't so much extrapolating to 9/11 as post-9/11... the two are different beasts. I also wasn't paying much attention to the state of US politics in the 2000 election, but it doesn't matter. Pulling troops back was not part of his 2004 plan, and I really wish people would stop living in the past while talking about this subject. Focus on the here and now, please.
Your post, especially the last paragraph, is something that I pretty much wholeheartedly agree with. Your interpretation of the 2000 election and questions regarding it are completely valid (as far as I can remember), but should have no real bearing on the current situation. As far as attempting to achieve a stable, peaceful, humanitarian, global environment, I couldn't agree more; I'm Canadian Military... attempting to achieve those ends is what we're known for, and why we get called in to assist so many nations under a UN charter.
Pacifists, however, generally believe that they can achieve these noble ends without bloodshed. I honestly wish it were so, but wishing does not make it so, and you've no choice but to back up that foreign policy that you mentioned above, with a fighting force that has teeth. I believe the last few pacifists that went into Iraq to try and preach their version of foreign policy, without the aid of a heavily armed force, got decapitated for their efforts.
No, you guys are now at the point where you have to "suck it up" and finish the job you started. Like it or not, your country invaded Iraq (it doesn't matter at this point whether it was for the right reasons, or not) and if you simply pack up shop and leave, that country will either self-destruct, or a worse group than Saddam's family will take power.... so you'll either end up with a HUGE number of Iraqis with large numbers of dead relatives (and they'll blame you for that) or you'll end up with a regime that sponsors terrorists (and they'll send them your way)
A war on terrorism has been a long time coming (communism was really the only thing that kept it in check), but now that it has begun, you guys have your hands tied... if you lay down your arms, your buildings and planes will start dropping faster than you can imagine
As for your claims that there are more dead terrorists now than existed before the war, I'd like to know:
a) Where you get your numbers, and
b) How they take sleeper cells into consideration.
You'll never convince me that an invasion like this, based in lies and proteacted to increase profit for the vice-president's previous employer will do anything more than make the USA less safe.
I'm really not trying to. I am, however, trying to convince you that, as a country, you're fucked if you don't follow through with what's already begun.
... and by claiming that this is not the same as WWII, you seem to be suggesting that the current state of the world has no parallels and absolutely no bearing on the reasons for the software authors' actions.
Though I'm not an American, I do live on the same continent as "Y'all" and I distinctly remember seeing something on the news about a group of people who wanted to blow up a lot of your civilians. Your President also claims that you're at war with them... which is good... since they certainly seem to believe that they are at war with you. Unfortunately you seem to be living in a fantasy world believing that if you somehow convinced your president to pull each and every single troopie back from overseas, that all these people trying to destroy your National Interests would simply get bored of the notion..... If you ever succeed in convincing him of this, let me know in advance so I can get as far away as fucking possible from this continent.... You think things are bad now? Turn the US into a toothless tiger and see how long it takes before a couple of armies start working their respective ways over to your front door...
But that's what people give MS shit for, finding and fixing security holes.
No, people give MS shit because it can take them in excess of 6 months to release a patch after someone else finds the holes for them.... though if you look at the graph for 2005, it would appear that they are getting better at patching faster.... but your average linux program gets patched within days of a published vulnerability.
no, I'm using the rule of thumb in determining the spin of electrons and current, based on the rule where you grasp the wire (coated) with your fingers, your thumb pointing in the direction of the flow (pos to neg) and the fingers show how the magnetic pulse flows.
That's actually the right hand rule but thanks for playing anyway
Mallory?.... never seen that in any crypto books or papers I've read. Any online pubs you could point me to that use it? I'm not disputing it (I even mentioned in my post that I thought it was because of the whole "Eve" thing) I've just never seen it.
I think it's just from looking at simple security/crypto convention. The two people who want to to "legit" things with their intarWeb are generally named Bob and Alice. Eve is usually the nasty interloper trying to foil all their plans. So... in crypto at least... your attacker is a chick named Eve.
The minute anyone starts talking about Iraq, the moderators go apeshit. Especially when someone says (as I did, though with a few reservations) that they support the war.... the idea is sound, Saddam and his sons were a fucking menace... It's just that the way the war is being fought isn't working. My basic point can be summed up as:
Ensure whichever fuckwit gets elected knows that a shift in strategies would be better than simply pulling out
I assume I'll get modded into oblivion because everyone on here seems to be either pro-war or anti-war and my view sits somewhere in the middle ground....
So that there can be a policy change and instead of trying to fix Iraq (the right way... by actually allowing the people to govern themselves) just pull out and leave them at the mercy of the "freedom" fighters.... who, once in power, will probably be Saddam V2.0.... like it or not, your government fucked things up in Iraq (don't get me wrong; they were incredibly fucked up to begin with...) but you went in with the promise of helping to fix things. The Afghanis hate you because you went in with the same promise (albeit slightly different in that you were requesting their help vs the Russians...) but left before you could fulfill your end of the bargain... and left the country at the mercy of the "freedom" fighters... who fucked up the country more than the Russians likely would have.
I know I'll get modded into oblivion for this, but please, hear me out. We all know that Bush led everyone into that country under false pretenses, and now all those who backed out, including my country are basically saying "told you so."... and for the record I am pissed that we did not go in with you; Don Cherry said it best: "If you go into a bar, and your buddy gets into a fight, it doesn't matter who started the fight, or who was right and who was wrong, you back your buddy up." none of this changes the fact, however, that Iraq is getting more and more fucked up as time goes on. Unless it gets fixed, it will come back to bite all of us in the ass.
I'm not saying that you should vote for or against Bush (though personally I don't like him, or his policies.) What I am saying is that regardless of which person gets voted into office they need to know that you support efforts in Iraq.... just not the current style of efforts that are being deployed. I wish I had the link to the blog of one of Americas sons who is/was over there and laid it on the line (it was on/. not too long ago).... tell your government to sit up and take fucking notice. It's too late to cry over whether or not the war was right, but not too late to tell your government that they need to clean up the mess, and that the current efforts are B/S....
Not to answer so late, but - uh - question. Where would you go for customized Laptops anyway???
In the interest of not being rude (by not responding).... I haven't got a fucking clue. I'm not entirely sure what we purchased (as I had absolutely zero involvement with the procurement process) and aside from noting that it has a centrino sticker on it (which may not actually mean anything....) I don't really know what's under the hood. The only point I was trying to make is that saying "I buy from Dell/Gateway b/c of the superior configuration testing" is like saying "I buy from Kia b/c Korean steel is the best shit going and I want to feel safe in my car/truck/tank"...
Wouldn't it be sweet if you could by laptop chassis and components from various vendors and custom build your own.... afaik you can do this (sort of), but I don't think you can buy the chassis on their own with no components installed....
exactly my point... and Dell can't be arsed to care about individual requirements, whereas a homebrew pc maker can ask the questions "what software and hardware do you use" and make sure that it's tested. The only problem is that a homebrew can't cope with a 3000+ pc order on 2 weeks notice (std end of fiscal year spending flurry;) "Sh!t, can you spend $100,000 within the next week!?"
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, but this would be more like: Spin around in a chair, put your arms our, cut off your hands and then put your arms in....
I know the mass is small, but how much would it take to slow the rotational velocity down by, say, 1%?
It seems to me that the problems of building a Space Elevator would be significantly reduced if be built one from the lunar surface.
Oh shit... I guess you didn't get the memo... erm... I'm not really sure how to tell you this... but... well...
We're not on the moon...
Something I've wondered about this is: if you take a rotating mass, like a figure skater's spinning body, or the earth, and you increase the radius of some of that mass from the center of mass, by extending their arms, or bringing mass up to the top of a space elevator, you slow the rotation. What kind of effect would slowing the rotation of the earth have on it? (from, say, a climate or geological perspective) and how much mass would it take to have this effect? Also, would it be a cumulative effect? ie. you raise 100 tons and slow the rotation of the earth by 10^-30 m/s^2, and set the 100 tons "free" from the tether: would the rotation return to normal, or would you have irrovecably lost that momentum?
I apologize in advance for fucking up any of the terminology... I'm obviously not a physicist....
Trivially false. Just launch two rockets for twice the payload.
Sorry dude, our rocket can only carry 100lbs, we're going to have to send you up in two separate rockets ;-)
Not true. Given the same technology, engineering, etc, a large rocket will have the same payload-to-fuel ratio as a small rocket. If it helps, trying thinking of a large rocket as two small rockets strapped together. (I found that helped me get around the incorrect intuitive notion that heavy things fall faster than light things.)
take a rocket that weighs in at a few thousand tons (50% or more of which is fuel), and is capable of lifting 1000kg... double it's lift capacity and suddenly you've doubled the amount of fuel required... oh wait... the fuel makes up most of the weight doesn't it? suddenly you've got to redesign your whole rocket because now you need even more fuel to get enough lift to carry the fuel that you added to carry the extra weight :S
Getting more out of your space program isn't as simple as just strapping another rocket, or adding more fuel...
... actually "Beg the question"
At any rate; Princess Toadstool ftw ;-)
LOL... agreed... though an impotent evil seldom stays that way for long.
There's actually not a helluva lot of distinction to be drawn between official and unofficial wars where the U.S. is concerned. Though I'll concede that no US ground troops were ever in Afghanistan in any official capacity, or in any way that could have, through combat, made a difference. The U.S. did, however, offer support to the various warlords in Afghanistan, to aid them in pushing the Soviets out. Once the Soviets were pushed out of the country, the U.S. dropped Afghanistan like a bad habit. The U.S. also never put any one group of warlords in power... that was the problem, they just left and the warlords began to fight amongst themselves for control of the country, and it's lucrative poppy fields. The Taliban eventually emerged as the ruling faction... and Bin Laden said "thank you" to the U.S. of A. for all it's support during the soviet occupation, as he was one of the freedom fighters that you guys trained and then dropped... much like the training that's going on in Iraq right now... it is all for a good cause, just like it was then.
Because of this, I'm trying to assert that there's not much difference between meddling and invading. I'd put a couple of paychecks, at least, on a similar situation arising in Iraq if the U.S. simply pulled out.
I didn't really make the presumption that no one would step in... I'm sure Iran would jump in there post haste. I will put this question to you though: would you, personally, feel comfortable with the state of the world if the U.S. pulled out of Iraq and Iran took it over?
I never claimed that it would be terrorists or Saddam's family. What I claimed was that it would likely be someone at least as bad as Saddam. In which case, they'd likely sponsor terrorist activities towards the U.S. (that definitely seems to be in vogue over there at the moment...) The alternate "claim" was that the country would self-destruct, a scenario that is all too likely; it's basically what led to the Taliban controlling Afghanistan after you guys pulled out in the late 70s. In this case, the odds would be high that most citizens of what is now Iraq would have severely decimated families. My guess (and yes, here's where you've got me, this is pure speculation) is that these survivors would be rather pissed off about their losses and blame all their woes upon the U.S. .... Again, this laying of blame at your feet seems to be in vogue over there.
I'm not trying to suggest that I embrace Bush's foreign policy, or that his plan (or lack thereof) gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside... but what I am trying to say is that it's a damned sight better than doing nothing. The last thing the world needs is another breeding ground for terrorists...
As for your comment that you've meddled and left many times before and it's never happened, I implore you to read about the country of Afghanistan in its post-Soviet occupation days. You guys basically gave the majority of these "freedom fighters" their start. Please please please don't pull out now and leave the rest of the world holding the bag....
I wasn't so much extrapolating to 9/11 as post-9/11... the two are different beasts. I also wasn't paying much attention to the state of US politics in the 2000 election, but it doesn't matter. Pulling troops back was not part of his 2004 plan, and I really wish people would stop living in the past while talking about this subject. Focus on the here and now, please. Your post, especially the last paragraph, is something that I pretty much wholeheartedly agree with. Your interpretation of the 2000 election and questions regarding it are completely valid (as far as I can remember), but should have no real bearing on the current situation. As far as attempting to achieve a stable, peaceful, humanitarian, global environment, I couldn't agree more; I'm Canadian Military... attempting to achieve those ends is what we're known for, and why we get called in to assist so many nations under a UN charter. Pacifists, however, generally believe that they can achieve these noble ends without bloodshed. I honestly wish it were so, but wishing does not make it so, and you've no choice but to back up that foreign policy that you mentioned above, with a fighting force that has teeth. I believe the last few pacifists that went into Iraq to try and preach their version of foreign policy, without the aid of a heavily armed force, got decapitated for their efforts.
No, you guys are now at the point where you have to "suck it up" and finish the job you started. Like it or not, your country invaded Iraq (it doesn't matter at this point whether it was for the right reasons, or not) and if you simply pack up shop and leave, that country will either self-destruct, or a worse group than Saddam's family will take power.... so you'll either end up with a HUGE number of Iraqis with large numbers of dead relatives (and they'll blame you for that) or you'll end up with a regime that sponsors terrorists (and they'll send them your way)
A war on terrorism has been a long time coming (communism was really the only thing that kept it in check), but now that it has begun, you guys have your hands tied... if you lay down your arms, your buildings and planes will start dropping faster than you can imagine
As for your claims that there are more dead terrorists now than existed before the war, I'd like to know:
a) Where you get your numbers, and
b) How they take sleeper cells into consideration.
You'll never convince me that an invasion like this, based in lies and proteacted to increase profit for the vice-president's previous employer will do anything more than make the USA less safe.
I'm really not trying to. I am, however, trying to convince you that, as a country, you're fucked if you don't follow through with what's already begun.
... and by claiming that this is not the same as WWII, you seem to be suggesting that the current state of the world has no parallels and absolutely no bearing on the reasons for the software authors' actions.
Though I'm not an American, I do live on the same continent as "Y'all" and I distinctly remember seeing something on the news about a group of people who wanted to blow up a lot of your civilians. Your President also claims that you're at war with them... which is good... since they certainly seem to believe that they are at war with you. Unfortunately you seem to be living in a fantasy world believing that if you somehow convinced your president to pull each and every single troopie back from overseas, that all these people trying to destroy your National Interests would simply get bored of the notion..... If you ever succeed in convincing him of this, let me know in advance so I can get as far away as fucking possible from this continent.... You think things are bad now? Turn the US into a toothless tiger and see how long it takes before a couple of armies start working their respective ways over to your front door...
But that's what people give MS shit for, finding and fixing security holes.
No, people give MS shit because it can take them in excess of 6 months to release a patch after someone else finds the holes for them.... though if you look at the graph for 2005, it would appear that they are getting better at patching faster.... but your average linux program gets patched within days of a published vulnerability.
no, I'm using the rule of thumb in determining the spin of electrons and current, based on the rule where you grasp the wire (coated) with your fingers, your thumb pointing in the direction of the flow (pos to neg) and the fingers show how the magnetic pulse flows.
That's actually the right hand rule but thanks for playing anyway
Imagine your laptop screaming 'I'm being stolen! I'm being stolen!' and paging security as the janitor walks out the door with it."
myes.... and imagine the look on the face of your boss when he realizes that by "working from home", you really meant working from the strip club ;-)
Thanks
Mallory? .... never seen that in any crypto books or papers I've read. Any online pubs you could point me to that use it? I'm not disputing it (I even mentioned in my post that I thought it was because of the whole "Eve" thing) I've just never seen it.
I think it's just from looking at simple security/crypto convention. The two people who want to to "legit" things with their intarWeb are generally named Bob and Alice. Eve is usually the nasty interloper trying to foil all their plans. So... in crypto at least... your attacker is a chick named Eve.
Unless you're talking about Canada.... in which case it's the second weekend in October :)
ditto
--Kleenex
The minute anyone starts talking about Iraq, the moderators go apeshit. Especially when someone says (as I did, though with a few reservations) that they support the war.... the idea is sound, Saddam and his sons were a fucking menace... It's just that the way the war is being fought isn't working. My basic point can be summed up as:
Ensure whichever fuckwit gets elected knows that a shift in strategies would be better than simply pulling out
I assume I'll get modded into oblivion because everyone on here seems to be either pro-war or anti-war and my view sits somewhere in the middle ground....
So that there can be a policy change and instead of trying to fix Iraq (the right way... by actually allowing the people to govern themselves) just pull out and leave them at the mercy of the "freedom" fighters.... who, once in power, will probably be Saddam V2.0 .... like it or not, your government fucked things up in Iraq (don't get me wrong; they were incredibly fucked up to begin with...) but you went in with the promise of helping to fix things. The Afghanis hate you because you went in with the same promise (albeit slightly different in that you were requesting their help vs the Russians...) but left before you could fulfill your end of the bargain... and left the country at the mercy of the "freedom" fighters... who fucked up the country more than the Russians likely would have.
I know I'll get modded into oblivion for this, but please, hear me out. We all know that Bush led everyone into that country under false pretenses, and now all those who backed out, including my country are basically saying "told you so." ... and for the record I am pissed that we did not go in with you; Don Cherry said it best: "If you go into a bar, and your buddy gets into a fight, it doesn't matter who started the fight, or who was right and who was wrong, you back your buddy up." none of this changes the fact, however, that Iraq is getting more and more fucked up as time goes on. Unless it gets fixed, it will come back to bite all of us in the ass.
I'm not saying that you should vote for or against Bush (though personally I don't like him, or his policies.) What I am saying is that regardless of which person gets voted into office they need to know that you support efforts in Iraq.... just not the current style of efforts that are being deployed. I wish I had the link to the blog of one of Americas sons who is/was over there and laid it on the line (it was on /. not too long ago) .... tell your government to sit up and take fucking notice. It's too late to cry over whether or not the war was right, but not too late to tell your government that they need to clean up the mess, and that the current efforts are B/S....
anyway... commence flaming/modding to oblivion...
Not to answer so late, but - uh - question. Where would you go for customized Laptops anyway???
In the interest of not being rude (by not responding).... I haven't got a fucking clue. I'm not entirely sure what we purchased (as I had absolutely zero involvement with the procurement process) and aside from noting that it has a centrino sticker on it (which may not actually mean anything....) I don't really know what's under the hood. The only point I was trying to make is that saying "I buy from Dell/Gateway b/c of the superior configuration testing" is like saying "I buy from Kia b/c Korean steel is the best shit going and I want to feel safe in my car/truck/tank" ...
Wouldn't it be sweet if you could by laptop chassis and components from various vendors and custom build your own.... afaik you can do this (sort of), but I don't think you can buy the chassis on their own with no components installed....
sorry... forgot to mention I work for the govt; that kind of thinking is prohibited ;)
exactly my point... and Dell can't be arsed to care about individual requirements, whereas a homebrew pc maker can ask the questions "what software and hardware do you use" and make sure that it's tested. The only problem is that a homebrew can't cope with a 3000+ pc order on 2 weeks notice (std end of fiscal year spending flurry ;) "Sh!t, can you spend $100,000 within the next week!?"