Actually, it is still relative, but only using general relativity, which universalizes relativity to include accelerations such as that from either gravitational fields or rotational motion. So, the universes spinning can be generalized as a gravitational field with centrifugal force. No, I don't really understand it myself, but Einstein specifically mentions the spinning disc case in explaining general relativity, so my guess is it would apply here too.
So we still can't say objectively that the universe is spinning. Although, this outwards acceleration could possibly explain the expansion of the universe (instead of "dark energy"). But now I'm completely guessing.
You really think HDD manufacturers can afford to raise and keep raised prices with SSD makers breathing down their necks? Yeah, I just don't see that happening. The only advantage HDD makers have now is the price/byte ratio is so low for them. They raise that, and they will die even faster than they are now.
Wait, damnit, humans don't know about us... I mean those yet! Shit, guess I shouldn't have mentioned it. I mean, nothing to see here fellow human/.'er, move along.
Yes. Yes it will;). Because I know that's why people in the Matrix did it. I was pointing out how godamned stupid that is, though, because machines can easily switch to any power source under the sun, even if it ceases to be under a sun. Nuclear, oil, coal, tidal, etc. Oh yeah, or nuclear (which Morpheus says that they have. You know a plot point is bad when you point out how bad it is in the movie itself.) Humans, however, cannot. We rely 100% on the sun for energy (via plants). While in theory we could find another source, it would be far less efficient for us to do so than for machines. It would require for us nuclear (or whatever)->electrical->light->photosynthesis->digestion->motive. For machines it's nuclear->electrical->motive. Yeah, way to screw over the machines!
Oh, and while I hate to even acknowledge the existence of the 2nd and 3rd movies, the scene in them where they go above the clouds leads to the question of: why didn't the robots just build giant balloons or light-weight aircraft with solar panels? Or satellites? Because both those things would give even more solar power than they could get on the surface, and would completely circumvent the whole "burning of the sky" thing.
Holy shit. I did not know that, and while muddling over how stupid the explanation they used was, I came to that exactly that as a far more plausible explanation that explains lots of various plot points that don't make much sense in the movie. For instance, why the machines need to keep humans conscious in a matrix at all, why they don't arbitrarily change whatever the hell they want (they change something once in the movie, why the hell can't they do that whenever and instantly?), why the agents are fairly limited and don't walk through walls/ have infinite ammo/ any video game cheat they want, etc. Now, all those things make a kind of sense (for instance, changing too much would ruin the calculations the humans are making).
So we went from an explanation that makes sense, to one that makes none at all and is in fact completely illogical and defies all the laws of physics and biology and renders the plot much less intelligible, because the former was too hard to understand for movie execs? Got it.
Well, it's a little odd. Wikipedia (here) lists Boeing first as the manufacturer, but in the Orbiter page, the only reference to Boeing was the modified 747 that carried the Shuttle. However, on further research Rockwell apparently sold their defense and aerospace divisions to Boeing in 1996, so that's how Boeing enters in. As for Lockheed Martin, they made the external tanks.
Yeah, it'll just have to make sure we don't commit suicide first by blotting out the sun. Which would make humans utterly worthless as power sources.
You know, come to think of it I think the machines in that movie might have been right to subjugate the humans, if only for their own damn good. After all, what is the one thing on the planet (besides some deep sea vents) that can survive and operate, and has for hundreds of years, without the Sun? If you said "machines", congratulations! You are smarter than every single person in the Matrix.
Okay, first of all, NASA has been using commercial companies to construct it's rockets for a long time now. The Space Shuttle? Yeah, that was made by Boeing and Lockheed Martin (among others), so it's not like corporations haven't been making basically everything we've put into space already. Same with the Saturn V and I presume most if not all other launch vehicles. They've just been costing us even more because of the combination of government and corporate incompetence (basically, anytime the government contracts out part of it's work to corporations like NASA did, you end up with overpriced and delayed projects. As proof: I offer the entire defense department and it's massive swollen budget. And NASA itself, in part.)
A private company that does everything on it's own is likely to be far (far far) more efficient. Virgin Galactic has already shown this. It's succeed or die for them, while for Boeing (for instance), failure just means more money and a delay. I haven't a clue how you arrived at the conclusion you did. If anything, this makes us less dependent on an individual company. If Virgin fails, we go somewhere else. Free market, bitch. It wasn't a free market before.
Oh, and BTW the other option on the table was to go to the Russians. I'll take an American company long before the Russian government. In a competition of greed and corruption, Russia won about 50 years ago.
Ok, I really, really hope you appreciate the full irony of the fact that you are endorsing Chrome, the browser made by Google (one of, if not the, largest advertising companies in the world) in a post complaining about.. companies that push advertising. Oh, the irony!
But I don't really see how advertising is the problem. If it wasn't for ads, the Internet would not be able to exist as it does today. Many of the sites you like would have to be behind paywalls, probably including Slashdot and its kin. And not just that, but, taking it further, TV shows could only exist on premium channels like HBO. Ads, as annoying as they can be, support a lot, for minimal cost to the end user (I can live with minor annoyance). You could even argue that they benefit us (an ad for a sale could actually save you money). I don't see at all how it drives copyright and distribution wars.
I wouldn't necessarily even mind if movies (for instance) could be downloaded for free with (moderately short and preferably genre-chosen) ads you couldn't skip (it would depend a lot on the implementation). Hulu, for instance, is awesome and can only exist because of ads. It allows me content I want (well, a little bit anyways) when I want (mostly), meaning I don't even want to break copyright. It doesn't seem like ads drive copyright wars: in many ways, I think they help alleviate them. Some counter-examples exist, I'm sure.
No, I think the problem is greed. That's it. Companies think they can make more money off DVD and ticket sales than they can off ads. So they crack down, when what they should be doing is switching to ad-supported online streaming of everything. This would probably even make them more money in the long run, they just can't see it.
IDK what instrument he's using, but for most the problem is that it takes two hands to play. Leaves very few hands (1) to change pages. Hence, he wants a foot switch.
Much much more than you would suspect. Any friends who use Facebook? Are there records of the corporations you bought and own (sweet gig there, BTW)? And of course, all your credit info from the cards is available (online from credit report sites). Also, I imagine you have a drivers license (not sure how info from that woks in Canada, though)
Now, this info isn't necessarily available entirely or easily to most people. But to major companies? Hell yeah. Even the houses could be traced back to you pretty easily. Unless you are deliberately staying off the radar using shell companies and the like, which is a lot of work and rarely worth it unless you are either insanely rich, insanely paranoid, or insanely criminal (bonus points for all three), companies will almost certainly have quite a lot on you.
After reading (well, skimming anyways) TFA, I really feel I should point out Facebook didn't say in TFA that the personal information was a trade secret, only that it would be an exception if it was. Possibly, they omitted information under the other exception, which is if it is exceptionally difficult to provide the information, and only gave both exceptions for maximum ass-coverage (and tinfoil-hat coverage too, apparently).
It wouldn't surprise me at all if they had more information than you gave them (such as from web tracking) which they don't give out, but TFA mentions data that he knew should have been there that wasn't. This leads me to suspect that this falls under the latter exception, for some reason. There really isn't enough information to know whether Facebook actually considers your data a trade secret (they don't even mention what the data was that Facebook omitted.)
Does it really count as "news" if anyone with two brain cells says "well, duh" when they hear about it? It would absolutely shock me (and I wouldn't believe it anyways) if I found out ther weren't doing this. And "privacy concerns"? If it's on the Internet, by definition it isn't private.
Also, no one in the government gives a shit what most/.'ers are doing (at least individually: collectively is a little different), sorry tinfoil hatters.
Ah, you mean the same Opera that is the only browser maker that supports ad blocking out of the box and has since well before AdBlock for Firefox? In fact, since before Firefox existed, although it's hard to find an exact date (early support was a bit crude, I suppose).
My impression after skimming the articles was that Opera wanted to position the ads better and less obtrusively. Many sites have ads that completely destroy the flow of text around them (or so I remember: I like many/.'ers no longer see ads on the Internet), and Opera's system seems to am at formating it better.
It isn't 'pages' in the same way those ad-ridden sites are. What they mean is that the whole thing is loaded, and displayed in discrete junks. No additional ads, loading times, or clicks. So, it would be a bit like using the Page Up/ Down keys (in a program where those actually go whole pages) or setting your scroll-wheel to jump whole pages, and formating the results nicely to fit into those junks. I have to say, as someone who uses a small (3.7") tablet nearly every day, this would be damn useful for a lot of things. Opera Mobile's column-text formatting is pretty good already. Wouldn't work on everything, such as/. comments, but for things like news articles, it could be extremely useful.
If you even glance at the examples on TFA you can see that this could be extremely nice. We are already used to the page-at-a-time system from books and newspapers, and scroll bars, while good on computers, nearly always tend to over/under shoot on tablets. This would eliminate that.
And remembering which one you used on every single site you use regularly? Sure, for email and the like, but there are at least a dozen (probably more) sites I visit semi-regularly. Remembering such passwords for each site is quite a trick. You can vary the password based on the site name (as others have suggested) or some such scheme, but it gets tricky if you use even a fair number of internet sites.
I only remember the passwords for 3-4 sites I visit (which I might want to access from random computers), and use random ones stored in Lastpass for the rest. Works for me.
Unique passwords are hard to remember (at least, if they're any good). Password managers help (a lot) but if the main password gets keylogged, you're screwed. We really need a better system than ID + password.
The recommendation was in the first link (well, it was more of an endorsement, but still). And I realized the second part of my comment was a mistake soon after making it, I just haven't looked at VMs in a while, and when I did, KVM and Xen both looked like fairly painful (I remember Xen a while back wouldn't work with my graphics card... but that was a few years ago) to set up for my casual interest, so I more or less forgot about them. Oh, and neither runs on Windows, which given the number of games I play makes them non-starters for me.
Thanks anyways for the info, I'd forgotten about those.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is still relative, but only using general relativity, which universalizes relativity to include accelerations such as that from either gravitational fields or rotational motion. So, the universes spinning can be generalized as a gravitational field with centrifugal force. No, I don't really understand it myself, but Einstein specifically mentions the spinning disc case in explaining general relativity, so my guess is it would apply here too.
So we still can't say objectively that the universe is spinning. Although, this outwards acceleration could possibly explain the expansion of the universe (instead of "dark energy"). But now I'm completely guessing.
You really think HDD manufacturers can afford to raise and keep raised prices with SSD makers breathing down their necks? Yeah, I just don't see that happening. The only advantage HDD makers have now is the price/byte ratio is so low for them. They raise that, and they will die even faster than they are now.
Even without Facebook selling it, it's already in some unscrupulous hands.
FTFY
Satellites. Robot probes. Sentient machines.
Wait, damnit, humans don't know about us... I mean those yet! Shit, guess I shouldn't have mentioned it. I mean, nothing to see here fellow human /.'er, move along.
That smugness...it'll get ya every time. ;)
Yes. Yes it will ;). Because I know that's why people in the Matrix did it. I was pointing out how godamned stupid that is, though, because machines can easily switch to any power source under the sun, even if it ceases to be under a sun. Nuclear, oil, coal, tidal, etc. Oh yeah, or nuclear (which Morpheus says that they have. You know a plot point is bad when you point out how bad it is in the movie itself.) Humans, however, cannot. We rely 100% on the sun for energy (via plants). While in theory we could find another source, it would be far less efficient for us to do so than for machines. It would require for us nuclear (or whatever)->electrical->light->photosynthesis->digestion->motive. For machines it's nuclear->electrical->motive. Yeah, way to screw over the machines!
Oh, and while I hate to even acknowledge the existence of the 2nd and 3rd movies, the scene in them where they go above the clouds leads to the question of: why didn't the robots just build giant balloons or light-weight aircraft with solar panels? Or satellites? Because both those things would give even more solar power than they could get on the surface, and would completely circumvent the whole "burning of the sky" thing.
Holy shit. I did not know that, and while muddling over how stupid the explanation they used was, I came to that exactly that as a far more plausible explanation that explains lots of various plot points that don't make much sense in the movie. For instance, why the machines need to keep humans conscious in a matrix at all, why they don't arbitrarily change whatever the hell they want (they change something once in the movie, why the hell can't they do that whenever and instantly?), why the agents are fairly limited and don't walk through walls/ have infinite ammo/ any video game cheat they want, etc. Now, all those things make a kind of sense (for instance, changing too much would ruin the calculations the humans are making).
So we went from an explanation that makes sense, to one that makes none at all and is in fact completely illogical and defies all the laws of physics and biology and renders the plot much less intelligible, because the former was too hard to understand for movie execs? Got it.
Well, it's a little odd. Wikipedia (here) lists Boeing first as the manufacturer, but in the Orbiter page, the only reference to Boeing was the modified 747 that carried the Shuttle. However, on further research Rockwell apparently sold their defense and aerospace divisions to Boeing in 1996, so that's how Boeing enters in. As for Lockheed Martin, they made the external tanks.
Yeah, it'll just have to make sure we don't commit suicide first by blotting out the sun. Which would make humans utterly worthless as power sources.
You know, come to think of it I think the machines in that movie might have been right to subjugate the humans, if only for their own damn good. After all, what is the one thing on the planet (besides some deep sea vents) that can survive and operate, and has for hundreds of years, without the Sun? If you said "machines", congratulations! You are smarter than every single person in the Matrix.
Sigh.
Okay, first of all, NASA has been using commercial companies to construct it's rockets for a long time now. The Space Shuttle? Yeah, that was made by Boeing and Lockheed Martin (among others), so it's not like corporations haven't been making basically everything we've put into space already. Same with the Saturn V and I presume most if not all other launch vehicles. They've just been costing us even more because of the combination of government and corporate incompetence (basically, anytime the government contracts out part of it's work to corporations like NASA did, you end up with overpriced and delayed projects. As proof: I offer the entire defense department and it's massive swollen budget. And NASA itself, in part.)
A private company that does everything on it's own is likely to be far (far far) more efficient. Virgin Galactic has already shown this. It's succeed or die for them, while for Boeing (for instance), failure just means more money and a delay. I haven't a clue how you arrived at the conclusion you did. If anything, this makes us less dependent on an individual company. If Virgin fails, we go somewhere else. Free market, bitch. It wasn't a free market before.
Oh, and BTW the other option on the table was to go to the Russians. I'll take an American company long before the Russian government. In a competition of greed and corruption, Russia won about 50 years ago.
You seem to be assuming sexual viabiliy will increasre proportionately. I doubt it will. So more people, but no larger families.
Do not try this at home. Pouring table salt on your hard drive platters will not improve their storage density.
Ok, I really, really hope you appreciate the full irony of the fact that you are endorsing Chrome, the browser made by Google (one of, if not the, largest advertising companies in the world) in a post complaining about.. companies that push advertising. Oh, the irony!
But I don't really see how advertising is the problem. If it wasn't for ads, the Internet would not be able to exist as it does today. Many of the sites you like would have to be behind paywalls, probably including Slashdot and its kin. And not just that, but, taking it further, TV shows could only exist on premium channels like HBO. Ads, as annoying as they can be, support a lot, for minimal cost to the end user (I can live with minor annoyance). You could even argue that they benefit us (an ad for a sale could actually save you money). I don't see at all how it drives copyright and distribution wars.
I wouldn't necessarily even mind if movies (for instance) could be downloaded for free with (moderately short and preferably genre-chosen) ads you couldn't skip (it would depend a lot on the implementation). Hulu, for instance, is awesome and can only exist because of ads. It allows me content I want (well, a little bit anyways) when I want (mostly), meaning I don't even want to break copyright. It doesn't seem like ads drive copyright wars: in many ways, I think they help alleviate them. Some counter-examples exist, I'm sure.
No, I think the problem is greed. That's it. Companies think they can make more money off DVD and ticket sales than they can off ads. So they crack down, when what they should be doing is switching to ad-supported online streaming of everything. This would probably even make them more money in the long run, they just can't see it.
Rockets.
Damn HTML tags, that was supposed to read '(<1)'
IDK what instrument he's using, but for most the problem is that it takes two hands to play. Leaves very few hands (1) to change pages. Hence, he wants a foot switch.
Much much more than you would suspect. Any friends who use Facebook? Are there records of the corporations you bought and own (sweet gig there, BTW)? And of course, all your credit info from the cards is available (online from credit report sites). Also, I imagine you have a drivers license (not sure how info from that woks in Canada, though)
Now, this info isn't necessarily available entirely or easily to most people. But to major companies? Hell yeah. Even the houses could be traced back to you pretty easily. Unless you are deliberately staying off the radar using shell companies and the like, which is a lot of work and rarely worth it unless you are either insanely rich, insanely paranoid, or insanely criminal (bonus points for all three), companies will almost certainly have quite a lot on you.
After reading (well, skimming anyways) TFA, I really feel I should point out Facebook didn't say in TFA that the personal information was a trade secret, only that it would be an exception if it was. Possibly, they omitted information under the other exception, which is if it is exceptionally difficult to provide the information, and only gave both exceptions for maximum ass-coverage (and tinfoil-hat coverage too, apparently).
It wouldn't surprise me at all if they had more information than you gave them (such as from web tracking) which they don't give out, but TFA mentions data that he knew should have been there that wasn't. This leads me to suspect that this falls under the latter exception, for some reason. There really isn't enough information to know whether Facebook actually considers your data a trade secret (they don't even mention what the data was that Facebook omitted.)
Does it really count as "news" if anyone with two brain cells says "well, duh" when they hear about it? It would absolutely shock me (and I wouldn't believe it anyways) if I found out ther weren't doing this. And "privacy concerns"? If it's on the Internet, by definition it isn't private.
Also, no one in the government gives a shit what most /.'ers are doing (at least individually: collectively is a little different), sorry tinfoil hatters.
Right now, yes. But moms tend to keep PCs for 6-8 years. 16GB is not overkill for that
Ah, you mean the same Opera that is the only browser maker that supports ad blocking out of the box and has since well before AdBlock for Firefox? In fact, since before Firefox existed, although it's hard to find an exact date (early support was a bit crude, I suppose).
My impression after skimming the articles was that Opera wanted to position the ads better and less obtrusively. Many sites have ads that completely destroy the flow of text around them (or so I remember: I like many /.'ers no longer see ads on the Internet), and Opera's system seems to am at formating it better.
It isn't 'pages' in the same way those ad-ridden sites are. What they mean is that the whole thing is loaded, and displayed in discrete junks. No additional ads, loading times, or clicks. So, it would be a bit like using the Page Up/ Down keys (in a program where those actually go whole pages) or setting your scroll-wheel to jump whole pages, and formating the results nicely to fit into those junks. I have to say, as someone who uses a small (3.7") tablet nearly every day, this would be damn useful for a lot of things. Opera Mobile's column-text formatting is pretty good already. Wouldn't work on everything, such as /. comments, but for things like news articles, it could be extremely useful.
If you even glance at the examples on TFA you can see that this could be extremely nice. We are already used to the page-at-a-time system from books and newspapers, and scroll bars, while good on computers, nearly always tend to over/under shoot on tablets. This would eliminate that.
And remembering which one you used on every single site you use regularly? Sure, for email and the like, but there are at least a dozen (probably more) sites I visit semi-regularly. Remembering such passwords for each site is quite a trick. You can vary the password based on the site name (as others have suggested) or some such scheme, but it gets tricky if you use even a fair number of internet sites.
I only remember the passwords for 3-4 sites I visit (which I might want to access from random computers), and use random ones stored in Lastpass for the rest. Works for me.
Unique passwords are hard to remember (at least, if they're any good). Password managers help (a lot) but if the main password gets keylogged, you're screwed. We really need a better system than ID + password.
So does Lynx. Your point?
The recommendation was in the first link (well, it was more of an endorsement, but still). And I realized the second part of my comment was a mistake soon after making it, I just haven't looked at VMs in a while, and when I did, KVM and Xen both looked like fairly painful (I remember Xen a while back wouldn't work with my graphics card... but that was a few years ago) to set up for my casual interest, so I more or less forgot about them. Oh, and neither runs on Windows, which given the number of games I play makes them non-starters for me.
Thanks anyways for the info, I'd forgotten about those.