Your analogy makes no sense. Chinese culture does not condone shooting people randomly.
Re:"Default Password" is different then no passwor
on
Phreaking Not Dead Yet
·
· Score: 1
I'm leasing a car. I don't have time to play 'lock the door'. It got stolen. Damn car dealer!
That is a stupid analogy.
I rented a car just last week. The guy at the counter didn't say to me, "This car comes with a lock, but it doesn't really lock the car, so make sure you replace the lock right away with a better one." When a rental car is locked, it's locked. It isn't my responsibility to replace the lock. The lock that the car comes with might not be as good as a lock I can replace it with, but failing to replace the lock is not tantamount to leaving the car unlocked. That would be unacceptable. Is a default password that isn't easily guessed too much to ask?
Geeks hear the phrase "default password" and they instantly want to unload on the user regardless of the situation. I can understand an Oracle DBA catching hell for relying on the "scott/tiger" password default. But this amount of responsibility is too much bullshit to unload on the general public. I must have somewhere between ten and twenty passwords to keep track of. Phone companies, ISPs, utilities, banks, web sites, and a whole host of other businesses are always offering products and services that I am not even interested in. A lot of them sign you up automatically. As the economy tanks, the number of gimmicks increases. Companies merge, combine their databases with information about you, alter their privacy policies, and enroll you in stupid programs you don't even know you're in. How the hell should I know if I have a default password set on some stupid account somewhere that I don't even know about? I probably do! Why is it MY responsibility to make sure that no corporate idiots leave my digital ass flapping in the wind?
Besides, we're talking about a password to protect an answering machine. Big deal! If somebody changes my message, I'll just change it back. Only my mother leaves me messages, and if they really want to listen to her, so what? A lot of people wouldn't even bother changing their password on something like this.
In this particular case, it's clear that the Corporate Idiots are at AT&T, and it's hard to blame the hapless fools at SBC for pointing this out. What if I want to have a legitimate answering machine message where I go "Yes... yes... yes... yes I'll accept the charges... yes..."? Now I'm responsible for leaving a message that won't fool AT&T's cheap-ass billing system? (A system whose entire purpose, BTW, was to eliminate human operators with their irritating pay, and benefits, and common sense! This stuff would never have happened twenty years ago, before AT&T decided they didn't want to pay the costs of handling their collect calls with the level of intelligence required to pass a Turing Test.) At no point have I ever consented to collect charges from AT&T. I'm answering questions that haven't been asked of me yet. What could they possibly be thinking? That I have a daughter who ran away from home, and I'm hoping she'll leave a message if she tries to call me collect while I'm gone? Are they on acid?
If you don't consent to charges, you are responsible for 0% of them. Apparently AT&T thinks it means you get 35% off.
I am Canadian, and live in Toronto. I used to sail over to the US to visit their friendly towns, but I stopped a few years ago because of their weird customs rules. If they decide your I68 form is not in order, your boat will be impounded. Due to their zero-tolerance drug laws, if an immigration officer decides that there is even one speck of marijuana on your boat, your boat will be impounded. I am NOT a pot user, btw.
This is a disturbing trend I heard more and more often during the Drug War (which continues to rage unabated), but especially since 9/11- people from countries like Canada and Great Britain are cancelling trips to the U.S. because they are scared to come here. With all the loud and apologetic rhetoric about how "rights are only for citizens" (which any lawyer can tell you is bullshit), can you blame them? If I weren't a U.S. citizen I'd be nervous to come here too given the scary shit I've been seeing enter the conventional wisdom. I've never seen a level of nationalism and xenophobia like I'm seeing now.
This country likes to shoot its collective mouth off about its "freedoms", and it slathers the words "freedom" and "liberty" through its propaganda. Just look at the obnoxious names we give to things like Operation Iraqi Freedom. Even a few years ago it would have gotten a sensible name like Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Fox. Our naming of military operations has become perfused with propaganda- Operation Restore Hope, and now Operation Iraqi Freedom which just sounds creepily dishonest. We have made no secret of the fact that these are freedoms for us, not for you in the rest of the world. And while we like the idea of democracy taking root in foreign lands, it better not get in the way of cheap gas here or something has to be done about it. We have no problems with our government undermining or overthrowing democratically elected governments, or propping up repressive regimes. That stuff happens in countries we know or care nothing about and 90% of us couldn't place them on a map to save our lives anyway.
Except that the freedom that Americans lecture the world about is really like the royalty in Britain- sort of there for show, functioning as a crowd-pleaser, but with no solid or meaningful foundation underneath it. The Queen has meaningless rights that have mere ceremonial value, and as an American citizen, so do you! The reaction to one day of hijackings has revealed that much. When it comes time to put up or shut up, and actually honor these inalienable rights that we brag about, we're really clever at coming up with various excuses for denying them. Ironically, we often do this by dreaming up new contervailing powers for the state, phrased as if they're rights enjoyed by individuals- like the "right not to be killed in a terrorist attack" or the "right to protect our flag from desecration". The British may be a little pretentious with their own cultural fiction, but at least they're not as hypocritical.
This "freedom fries" talk can't be helping, either. Here it's just funny, but I just can't believe that nobody overseas is hearing the words "freedom fries" and questioning the wisdom of their investments here.
Americans are stupidly digging their own grave. If it means they might never have to start an uncomfortable conversation with their children about pot, the idiots will watch contentedly as thousands of people's lives are ruined in prison and Canadians (i.e. foreigners) have their boats confiscated with no due process. Then when the country has succeeded in scaring all foreign investment away and sinks into a depression, we'll just pin the blame on France (or whatever other representative of the civilized world has gotten in our way most recently). We're so wonderful, that if the world thinks we've lost our minds, it must be someone else's fault.
You can't really compare this to a "Library of Congress", so I'll try using the McDonald's coffee lawsuit as a unit of measure.
The plaintiff in that case suffered third degree burns over 6 percent of her body from one cup of coffee. A jury awarded punitive damages in the amount of two days worth of profits from McDonald's coffee- which turned out to be $2.7 million dollars. (On appeal a judge lowered the award to $480,000- or about a third of a day's coffee profits- and it was finally settled for an undisclosed amount. But just to be conservative, let's use the 2.7 million figure, since that's the one everyone is familiar with.)
$97.8 billion divided by 2.7 million means we're talking about the equivalent of 36,000 McDonald's coffee lawsuit jury awards. To get a punitive damages award against you this high, you would have to amass over 4500 gallons of overheated mediocre coffee- enough to fill 81 standard 55 gallon drums- and pour it all on an old lady wearing synthetic fabrics. Actually, more than one old lady. For that kind of money you could completely cover 2,173 old ladies in third degree burns over 100% of their bodies. McDonald's would have to sell coffee for 198 years just to break even if it did something this bad.
Hitler was a socialist. He has much more in common with modern day liberals than conservatives.
Can you offer anything with which to back up this ridiculous assertion?
Or are you jumping to conclusions from the name of the National Socialist German Worker's Party? The name was a propaganda ploy coined in the twenties to gain political leverage.
Well, it looks like I put out all the flames... and my original post is still at +5 despite two "Troll" moderations.
I should have realized that link would be a magnet for C++ programmers, and that people might think I wrote that stuff. I had just assumed it was obvious that it wasn't me when I clicked "Submit".
Have you seen some of these responses? It's almost as if these C++ guys have no sense of humor about their language!:-)
You get clockwise motion is v_i is pointed away from the axel -- which only happens half the time.
A particle moving away from the axle, moving clockwise, will be approaching the axle by the time it has gone 180 degrees around its clockwise orbit. It won't suddenly start going counterclockwise at that point. You're making a sign error somewhere. The motion is clockwise when v points toward the axle as well.
Look at it this way- the plasma particles will move in a way that creates a field that opposes the external field. For positively charged particles, that means clockwise motion.
The point is moot, since the machine doesn't work anyway.
Actually, if they take your enlightened viewpoint, there is no problem. But I think they will be inclined to view the provider of the IP layer as also a provider of services within all application layers above it. Since this means your cable company can charge you a higher for VPN, I think it's at least possible that the law might be interpreted that way.
No, all the positive charges move in clockwise helical paths. F = qv x B. If the field is pointing up they go clockwise, and if it's pointing down they go counterclockwise.
The propellor still doesn't turn, because each propellor blade will still have just as many protons striking each of it. They all go clockwise, but if you trace out their paths you'll see it still doesn't matter as far as moving the propellor is concerned.
Every IP packet I pass through my ISP contains a source and destination IP address. What else do they need to know?
Sec. 540c. (1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used to do any of the following: (a) Obtain or attempt to obtain a telecommunications service with the intent to avoid or aid or abet or cause another person to avoid any lawful charge for the telecommunications service in violation of section 219a. (b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service. (c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.
The rest of the bill appears to provide support and procedural infrastructure for the section above.
Magnetic fields only cause charged particles to go in circles if there's relative motion between the particles and the magnet. If you just stick a magnet next to a loop of wire, nothing happens. You have to *move* the magnet.
Similarly, you need to inject the plasma at high velocity.
Or at high temperature, which is why everything is made of ceramic. The thermal motion of the individual particles in the plasma means they aren't stationary with respect to the magnet.
If the particles hit the propellor and turn it, they lose energy and the plasma cools- making this a lousy PPM of the first kind. But on a planet with a very hot atmosphere, it would be a good example of a PPM of the second kind because more thermal energy keeps coming in through the walls.
Yeah, that's basically it. The geometry of the gear teeth is what screws things up. The thermal motion in the pawl and gear allows the gear to jiggle. It only takes a tiny jiggle in the pawl and gear assembly to go the wrong way by one tooth, but it requires a larger jiggle to go the right way. So when the pawl clicks back into place the wheel is likely to have shifted the wrong way. And as the ratchet reengages, it pushes the vanes and they dump heat back into the gas. These effects, plus the effects anticipated in the original design (where everything works "correctly") ensure that the motion is random.
People have argued that the ratchet/pawl motor will work if the motor is tiny enough. A version was made out of benzene rings in 1997 and they found that it jiggles randomly.
Still, it's probably the coolest perpetual motion machine anyone has come up with.
Say a proton hits the propellor. It will bounce, move in a semicircle in toward the center, hit the propellor again, and keep bouncing in little semicircles until it almost reaches the propellor axis- then it will hit the other side of the next propellor vane- bouncing back up, away from the center, striking against the wrong side and pushing it the wrong way. So the propellor won't rotate at all and the machine doesn't work, for reasons that have nothing to do with the Second Law.
In Feynman's The Character of Physical Law, he talks about a PPM of the second kind that is much simpler. He has a similar setup, with a propellor inside an enclosure, and an ideal gas at room temperature. In this one the propellor is set up with a rachet and pawl so it can only turn in one direction. As gas molecules in Brownian motion strike the vanes, the propellor turns, but the ratchet and pawl only allow it to rotate clockwise- so it extracts energy out of the thermal motion of the gas. That machine fails for reasons that are truly subtle and fantastic.
C++ does not suck, it's your puny little brain that sucks and does not understand some basic programming principles.
I posted the link as a joke. A guy I work with found that letter to Bjarne Soustroup and thought it was funny, and I thought it was funny too, in a Beavis and Butthead sort of way.
C++ is a fine language. The only things I don't like about it are
The lack of library standardization (this has become less of an issue now that STL is supported by most environments, but is still an issue for GUI libs- although Java has its own problems in this area)
The preprocessor- there have been many times in Java where I wished it had a preprocessor. But people seem to abuse the preprocessor when coding in C++. You never know what you're looking at.
The flexibility of the language- C++ has more language-level features than any other programming language I've ever seen. I think if you're working on a project by yourself, C++ is a great choice. But in large C++ projects, too many cooks can spoil the broth. The language just offers too many features and usually most of them are inappropriate in a given situation. You need to build up a lot of experience in C++ before anyone can trust you with it. Unless you're really good at interviewing programmers, C++ can be a dangerous choice for a large project simply because a bad or inexperienced programmer can introduce so much damage.
This is not to say that a language is only good if it is tolerant of bad programmers. The job market is bad enough that there are lots of resumes from good programmers on our desks. But sorting these people out isn't easy.
If this could work, we could have cars and airplanes that ran off the heat of the air surrounding them.
Nobody ever spoke much of harnessing the power of the heat in the ocean, until those thermal gradients were discovered between surface waters and deep water. With two heat reservoirs you can transfer heat from one to the other, extracting some of the energy as a tax as it moves from warm to cold regions, generating nice things like fresh water and electricity.
With no temperature differential, there is no way to do this without causing a global decrease in entropy.
It's late on a Saturday night, I'm drunk, and I may be wrong, but haven't you just given it an external energy source ? What's the conceptual difference between that and a car engine with an everlasting supply of petrol ? I thought one of the requirements for a PPM is to not depend on external energy sources.
You've illustrated how these machines are better at fooling people (at least drunk Brits) than the simpler kind. PPMs of the first kind (like the ones on that web page) get scoffs from everybody because they produce energy from nothing. A PPM of the second kind can rely on an external energy source, but it can only be a single thermal heat reservoir. None of these machines will work, since they rely on some process that must cause a global reduction in entropy. You can't simply convert disordered thermal energy into ordered kinetic energy.
I also don't see why cooler seawater has reduced entropy.
Because it's colder.
I can see it having reduced energy (temperature being a good measure of energy) but why more-ordered-but-identical-energy collections of water-molecules should be colder (ie: less energetic!) than less-ordered-but-identical-energy molecules escapes me.
Look at it this way. Before the ship comes, the ocean water is in thermodynamic equilibrium at 20 degrees C. The ship comes through, scooping some water up into its PPM engine that extracts thermal energy from the water, dumping it back with a temperature one degree cooler. It uses the energy to spin its propellor, which heats the water it pushes by about a degree. After the boat has passed through, there are parts of the water one degree cooler and parts one degree warmer. The water then undergoes an irreversible transfer of energy from warm to cool water, until it is all the same temperature again.
The fact that the aftermath is irreversible should strongly imply that the engine was doing something magical when it ran the reverse process in the first place.
Its exactly like connecting an internal combustion engine up to a nearly infinite tank of gasoline.
And don't forget, another nearly infinite tank of oxygen.
If that were a correct analogy then perpetual motion machines of the second kind would be viable. There's nothing special about a machine that can run using a supply of gasoline and oxygen. But a machine that can extract useful work from a single heat reservoir of disordered ambient thermal energy would be nothing less than magic.
This particular machine has a flaw more fundamental than that.
I hate C++ as much as the next guy, so I was hoping to read that Andkon page and find a good, well-thought-out flaming, but really it was pathetic.
If you clicked on that link hoping to get a well thought out argument about why C++ sucks, you have my apologies. I should have explained it was a joke because now I've got people who think I wrote that page myself.
I got the page to load before it got slashdotted, and it looks like these are all perpetual motion machines of the first kind. These machines violate conservation of energy.
Perpetual motion machines of the second kind don't violate conservation of energy, but they rely on a decrease in entropy. With a machine like that a ship could run an engine that extracts energy from the ambient water temperature to do work, leaving a trail of colder seawater behind the ship. That doesn't violate conservation of energy, but it does cause a global reduction of entropy.
It takes more cleverness to come up with a machine of the second kind, and it's usually less obvious why they don't work.
Here's a machine like that. Assume we have a propellor made of some heat resistant material like ceramic, inside a larger ceramic housing in which it is free to rotate. Stick a big permanent magnet around it so that there is a magnetic field running through it, parallel to the propellor axis. Now inject a hot plasma of some sort into the device. Electrons in the plasma move in tight little counterclockwise circles because of the field. Protons move in much wider clockwise circles (they're heavier), so they hit the propellor blades preferentially in one direction and make it rotate.
Of course the plasma is going to cool down quickly if the protons in it are imparting kinetic energy to the propellor. So as a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, it's obviously going to run down and stop. But take the whole machine and drop it on a planet where the ambient temperature is high enough to keep the plasma hot. As the propellor extracts energy, more heat flows into the machine. What's wrong with it now?
Especially I would not insult someone that can code rings around you and the kids website. If you do not know much about c++/c then don't bitch.
Oh please. It was a joke in response to the parent. The kid is obviously a moron.
C++ is an incredibly powerfull and langauge. I had no idea I could declare an identifer as type "register" and bypass the ram and use the cpu registers directly! Try that in any other language?
Like C?
You generally shouldn't use the register keyword. It interferes with compiler optimizations and the compiler can usually do a better job of mapping variables to registers than you can.
Tail recursion is also cool and I am learning that now.
I know the IBM Java compiler implements tail recursion. I don't know if Sun's compiler does.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analogy makes no sense. Chinese culture does not condone shooting people randomly.
I'm leasing a car. I don't have time to play 'lock the door'. It got stolen. Damn car dealer!
That is a stupid analogy.
I rented a car just last week. The guy at the counter didn't say to me, "This car comes with a lock, but it doesn't really lock the car, so make sure you replace the lock right away with a better one." When a rental car is locked, it's locked. It isn't my responsibility to replace the lock. The lock that the car comes with might not be as good as a lock I can replace it with, but failing to replace the lock is not tantamount to leaving the car unlocked. That would be unacceptable. Is a default password that isn't easily guessed too much to ask?
Geeks hear the phrase "default password" and they instantly want to unload on the user regardless of the situation. I can understand an Oracle DBA catching hell for relying on the "scott/tiger" password default. But this amount of responsibility is too much bullshit to unload on the general public. I must have somewhere between ten and twenty passwords to keep track of. Phone companies, ISPs, utilities, banks, web sites, and a whole host of other businesses are always offering products and services that I am not even interested in. A lot of them sign you up automatically. As the economy tanks, the number of gimmicks increases. Companies merge, combine their databases with information about you, alter their privacy policies, and enroll you in stupid programs you don't even know you're in. How the hell should I know if I have a default password set on some stupid account somewhere that I don't even know about? I probably do! Why is it MY responsibility to make sure that no corporate idiots leave my digital ass flapping in the wind?
Besides, we're talking about a password to protect an answering machine. Big deal! If somebody changes my message, I'll just change it back. Only my mother leaves me messages, and if they really want to listen to her, so what? A lot of people wouldn't even bother changing their password on something like this.
In this particular case, it's clear that the Corporate Idiots are at AT&T, and it's hard to blame the hapless fools at SBC for pointing this out. What if I want to have a legitimate answering machine message where I go "Yes... yes... yes... yes I'll accept the charges... yes..."? Now I'm responsible for leaving a message that won't fool AT&T's cheap-ass billing system? (A system whose entire purpose, BTW, was to eliminate human operators with their irritating pay, and benefits, and common sense! This stuff would never have happened twenty years ago, before AT&T decided they didn't want to pay the costs of handling their collect calls with the level of intelligence required to pass a Turing Test.) At no point have I ever consented to collect charges from AT&T. I'm answering questions that haven't been asked of me yet. What could they possibly be thinking? That I have a daughter who ran away from home, and I'm hoping she'll leave a message if she tries to call me collect while I'm gone? Are they on acid?
If you don't consent to charges, you are responsible for 0% of them. Apparently AT&T thinks it means you get 35% off.
I am Canadian, and live in Toronto. I used to sail over to the US to visit their friendly towns, but I stopped a few years ago because of their weird customs rules. If they decide your I68 form is not in order, your boat will be impounded. Due to their zero-tolerance drug laws, if an immigration officer decides that there is even one speck of marijuana on your boat, your boat will be impounded. I am NOT a pot user, btw.
This is a disturbing trend I heard more and more often during the Drug War (which continues to rage unabated), but especially since 9/11- people from countries like Canada and Great Britain are cancelling trips to the U.S. because they are scared to come here. With all the loud and apologetic rhetoric about how "rights are only for citizens" (which any lawyer can tell you is bullshit), can you blame them? If I weren't a U.S. citizen I'd be nervous to come here too given the scary shit I've been seeing enter the conventional wisdom. I've never seen a level of nationalism and xenophobia like I'm seeing now.
This country likes to shoot its collective mouth off about its "freedoms", and it slathers the words "freedom" and "liberty" through its propaganda. Just look at the obnoxious names we give to things like Operation Iraqi Freedom. Even a few years ago it would have gotten a sensible name like Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Fox. Our naming of military operations has become perfused with propaganda- Operation Restore Hope, and now Operation Iraqi Freedom which just sounds creepily dishonest. We have made no secret of the fact that these are freedoms for us, not for you in the rest of the world. And while we like the idea of democracy taking root in foreign lands, it better not get in the way of cheap gas here or something has to be done about it. We have no problems with our government undermining or overthrowing democratically elected governments, or propping up repressive regimes. That stuff happens in countries we know or care nothing about and 90% of us couldn't place them on a map to save our lives anyway.
Except that the freedom that Americans lecture the world about is really like the royalty in Britain- sort of there for show, functioning as a crowd-pleaser, but with no solid or meaningful foundation underneath it. The Queen has meaningless rights that have mere ceremonial value, and as an American citizen, so do you! The reaction to one day of hijackings has revealed that much. When it comes time to put up or shut up, and actually honor these inalienable rights that we brag about, we're really clever at coming up with various excuses for denying them. Ironically, we often do this by dreaming up new contervailing powers for the state, phrased as if they're rights enjoyed by individuals- like the "right not to be killed in a terrorist attack" or the "right to protect our flag from desecration". The British may be a little pretentious with their own cultural fiction, but at least they're not as hypocritical.
This "freedom fries" talk can't be helping, either. Here it's just funny, but I just can't believe that nobody overseas is hearing the words "freedom fries" and questioning the wisdom of their investments here.
Americans are stupidly digging their own grave. If it means they might never have to start an uncomfortable conversation with their children about pot, the idiots will watch contentedly as thousands of people's lives are ruined in prison and Canadians (i.e. foreigners) have their boats confiscated with no due process. Then when the country has succeeded in scaring all foreign investment away and sinks into a depression, we'll just pin the blame on France (or whatever other representative of the civilized world has gotten in our way most recently). We're so wonderful, that if the world thinks we've lost our minds, it must be someone else's fault.
You can't really compare this to a "Library of Congress", so I'll try using the McDonald's coffee lawsuit as a unit of measure.
The plaintiff in that case suffered third degree burns over 6 percent of her body from one cup of coffee. A jury awarded punitive damages in the amount of two days worth of profits from McDonald's coffee- which turned out to be $2.7 million dollars. (On appeal a judge lowered the award to $480,000- or about a third of a day's coffee profits- and it was finally settled for an undisclosed amount. But just to be conservative, let's use the 2.7 million figure, since that's the one everyone is familiar with.)
$97.8 billion divided by 2.7 million means we're talking about the equivalent of 36,000 McDonald's coffee lawsuit jury awards. To get a punitive damages award against you this high, you would have to amass over 4500 gallons of overheated mediocre coffee- enough to fill 81 standard 55 gallon drums- and pour it all on an old lady wearing synthetic fabrics. Actually, more than one old lady. For that kind of money you could completely cover 2,173 old ladies in third degree burns over 100% of their bodies. McDonald's would have to sell coffee for 198 years just to break even if it did something this bad.
Remember kids, sharing files is wrong!
Hitler was a socialist. He has much more in common with modern day liberals than conservatives.
Can you offer anything with which to back up this ridiculous assertion?
Or are you jumping to conclusions from the name of the National Socialist German Worker's Party? The name was a propaganda ploy coined in the twenties to gain political leverage.
Of course momentum is transferred in each collision, but as many particles will be hitting the wrong side of each vane as the right side.
Well, it looks like I put out all the flames... and my original post is still at +5 despite two "Troll" moderations.
:-)
I should have realized that link would be a magnet for C++ programmers, and that people might think I wrote that stuff. I had just assumed it was obvious that it wasn't me when I clicked "Submit".
Have you seen some of these responses? It's almost as if these C++ guys have no sense of humor about their language!
You get clockwise motion is v_i is pointed away from the axel -- which only happens half the time.
A particle moving away from the axle, moving clockwise, will be approaching the axle by the time it has gone 180 degrees around its clockwise orbit. It won't suddenly start going counterclockwise at that point. You're making a sign error somewhere. The motion is clockwise when v points toward the axle as well.
Look at it this way- the plasma particles will move in a way that creates a field that opposes the external field. For positively charged particles, that means clockwise motion.
The point is moot, since the machine doesn't work anyway.
Actually, if they take your enlightened viewpoint, there is no problem. But I think they will be inclined to view the provider of the IP layer as also a provider of services within all application layers above it. Since this means your cable company can charge you a higher for VPN, I think it's at least possible that the law might be interpreted that way.
No, all the positive charges move in clockwise helical paths. F = q v x B. If the field is pointing up they go clockwise, and if it's pointing down they go counterclockwise.
The propellor still doesn't turn, because each propellor blade will still have just as many protons striking each of it. They all go clockwise, but if you trace out their paths you'll see it still doesn't matter as far as moving the propellor is concerned.
Every IP packet I pass through my ISP contains a source and destination IP address.
What else do they need to know?
Sec. 540c.
(1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used to do any of the following:
(a) Obtain or attempt to obtain a telecommunications service with the intent to avoid or aid or abet or cause another person to avoid any lawful charge for the telecommunications service in violation of section 219a.
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service.
(c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.
The rest of the bill appears to provide support and procedural infrastructure for the section above.
Sorry.
Magnetic fields only cause charged particles to go in circles if there's relative motion between the particles and the magnet. If you just stick a magnet next to a loop of wire, nothing happens. You have to *move* the magnet.
Similarly, you need to inject the plasma at high velocity.
Or at high temperature, which is why everything is made of ceramic. The thermal motion of the individual particles in the plasma means they aren't stationary with respect to the magnet.
If the particles hit the propellor and turn it, they lose energy and the plasma cools- making this a lousy PPM of the first kind. But on a planet with a very hot atmosphere, it would be a good example of a PPM of the second kind because more thermal energy keeps coming in through the walls.
Yeah, that's basically it. The geometry of the gear teeth is what screws things up. The thermal motion in the pawl and gear allows the gear to jiggle. It only takes a tiny jiggle in the pawl and gear assembly to go the wrong way by one tooth, but it requires a larger jiggle to go the right way. So when the pawl clicks back into place the wheel is likely to have shifted the wrong way. And as the ratchet reengages, it pushes the vanes and they dump heat back into the gas. These effects, plus the effects anticipated in the original design (where everything works "correctly") ensure that the motion is random.
People have argued that the ratchet/pawl motor will work if the motor is tiny enough. A version was made out of benzene rings in 1997 and they found that it jiggles randomly.
Still, it's probably the coolest perpetual motion machine anyone has come up with.
Nah, you can always argue that away by reducing the plasma density and increasing the external field.
It doesn't work (I think- I haven't built one) because the protons bounce down one propellor vane and then back up another.
I came up with this device when I was doing a homework assignment in college. Feynman's machine is much better.
Say a proton hits the propellor. It will bounce, move in a semicircle in toward the center, hit the propellor again, and keep bouncing in little semicircles until it almost reaches the propellor axis- then it will hit the other side of the next propellor vane- bouncing back up, away from the center, striking against the wrong side and pushing it the wrong way. So the propellor won't rotate at all and the machine doesn't work, for reasons that have nothing to do with the Second Law.
In Feynman's The Character of Physical Law, he talks about a PPM of the second kind that is much simpler. He has a similar setup, with a propellor inside an enclosure, and an ideal gas at room temperature. In this one the propellor is set up with a rachet and pawl so it can only turn in one direction. As gas molecules in Brownian motion strike the vanes, the propellor turns, but the ratchet and pawl only allow it to rotate clockwise- so it extracts energy out of the thermal motion of the gas. That machine fails for reasons that are truly subtle and fantastic.
I posted the link as a joke. A guy I work with found that letter to Bjarne Soustroup and thought it was funny, and I thought it was funny too, in a Beavis and Butthead sort of way.
C++ is a fine language. The only things I don't like about it are
This is not to say that a language is only good if it is tolerant of bad programmers. The job market is bad enough that there are lots of resumes from good programmers on our desks. But sorting these people out isn't easy.
That's correct. There is only one heat reservoir.
If this could work, we could have cars and airplanes that ran off the heat of the air surrounding them.
Nobody ever spoke much of harnessing the power of the heat in the ocean, until those thermal gradients were discovered between surface waters and deep water. With two heat reservoirs you can transfer heat from one to the other, extracting some of the energy as a tax as it moves from warm to cold regions, generating nice things like fresh water and electricity.
With no temperature differential, there is no way to do this without causing a global decrease in entropy.
It's late on a Saturday night, I'm drunk, and I may be wrong, but haven't you just given it an external energy source ? What's the conceptual difference between that and a car engine with an everlasting supply of petrol ? I thought one of the requirements for a PPM is to not depend on external energy sources.
You've illustrated how these machines are better at fooling people (at least drunk Brits) than the simpler kind. PPMs of the first kind (like the ones on that web page) get scoffs from everybody because they produce energy from nothing. A PPM of the second kind can rely on an external energy source, but it can only be a single thermal heat reservoir. None of these machines will work, since they rely on some process that must cause a global reduction in entropy. You can't simply convert disordered thermal energy into ordered kinetic energy.
I also don't see why cooler seawater has reduced entropy.
Because it's colder.
I can see it having reduced energy (temperature being a good measure of energy) but why more-ordered-but-identical-energy collections of water-molecules should be colder (ie: less energetic!) than less-ordered-but-identical-energy molecules escapes me.
Look at it this way. Before the ship comes, the ocean water is in thermodynamic equilibrium at 20 degrees C. The ship comes through, scooping some water up into its PPM engine that extracts thermal energy from the water, dumping it back with a temperature one degree cooler. It uses the energy to spin its propellor, which heats the water it pushes by about a degree. After the boat has passed through, there are parts of the water one degree cooler and parts one degree warmer. The water then undergoes an irreversible transfer of energy from warm to cool water, until it is all the same temperature again.
The fact that the aftermath is irreversible should strongly imply that the engine was doing something magical when it ran the reverse process in the first place.
Its exactly like connecting an internal combustion engine up to a nearly infinite tank of gasoline.
And don't forget, another nearly infinite tank of oxygen.
If that were a correct analogy then perpetual motion machines of the second kind would be viable. There's nothing special about a machine that can run using a supply of gasoline and oxygen. But a machine that can extract useful work from a single heat reservoir of disordered ambient thermal energy would be nothing less than magic.
This particular machine has a flaw more fundamental than that.
I hate C++ as much as the next guy, so I was hoping to read that Andkon page and find a good, well-thought-out flaming, but really it was pathetic.
If you clicked on that link hoping to get a well thought out argument about why C++ sucks, you have my apologies. I should have explained it was a joke because now I've got people who think I wrote that page myself.
I got the page to load before it got slashdotted, and it looks like these are all perpetual motion machines of the first kind. These machines violate conservation of energy.
Perpetual motion machines of the second kind don't violate conservation of energy, but they rely on a decrease in entropy. With a machine like that a ship could run an engine that extracts energy from the ambient water temperature to do work, leaving a trail of colder seawater behind the ship. That doesn't violate conservation of energy, but it does cause a global reduction of entropy.
It takes more cleverness to come up with a machine of the second kind, and it's usually less obvious why they don't work.
Here's a machine like that. Assume we have a propellor made of some heat resistant material like ceramic, inside a larger ceramic housing in which it is free to rotate. Stick a big permanent magnet around it so that there is a magnetic field running through it, parallel to the propellor axis. Now inject a hot plasma of some sort into the device. Electrons in the plasma move in tight little counterclockwise circles because of the field. Protons move in much wider clockwise circles (they're heavier), so they hit the propellor blades preferentially in one direction and make it rotate.
Of course the plasma is going to cool down quickly if the protons in it are imparting kinetic energy to the propellor. So as a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, it's obviously going to run down and stop. But take the whole machine and drop it on a planet where the ambient temperature is high enough to keep the plasma hot. As the propellor extracts energy, more heat flows into the machine. What's wrong with it now?
Especially I would not insult someone that can code rings around you and the kids website. If you do not know much about c++/c then don't bitch.
Oh please. It was a joke in response to the parent. The kid is obviously a moron.
C++ is an incredibly powerfull and langauge. I had no idea I could declare an identifer as type "register" and bypass the ram and use the cpu registers directly! Try that in any other language?
Like C?
You generally shouldn't use the register keyword. It interferes with compiler optimizations and the compiler can usually do a better job of mapping variables to registers than you can.
Tail recursion is also cool and I am learning that now.
I know the IBM Java compiler implements tail recursion. I don't know if Sun's compiler does.
I wasn't trolling, I just thought the kid's letter to Bjarne and the response he got were amusing.
You're the third person who thought that was a link to my own page. I guess I have to start using those smileys in my posts.
See above; it's not my link. I found it and thought it was funny.
You think that's my page?! C++ didn't even exist back when I was in high school.
I especially liked the part where he explains to Bjarne why JavaScript has a better type system.