The point of this is that a signal may only propagate outwards until the total mass behind it exceeds a critical value (the location of this is called the "event horizon" in an analogy to black holes). At that point its deflection will equal more than 90 degrees...i.e. it will not go any farther from its point of origin.
Obviously this limit, if it exists, is more than several billion light years, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see galaxies that far away. So I don't think this is going to affect SETI too much.
I should point out that what I meant by that is, the attempt to butter the feet will hurt you, not the cat. Obviously if you succeed in doing it, and then separate the buttered-feet cat from the floor by even a microscopic distance, the resulting destruction will hurt you and the cat.
Now that I've put some thought into it, I realize that the terrorists may read the above post and realize the potential for building a weapon. The Buttered Cat Feet Bomb. May God have mercy on us all.
I'm not an engineer, but could buttering the cat's feet help here?
No, but it can hurt. You, that is, not the cat.
If you butter the cat's feet, the cat-lands-on-feet force and the butter-hits-floor forces will reinforce each other, and most likely the cat will hit the floor feet first with the force of several nuclear weapons, destroying cat, floor, and anything within a radius of a few kilometers. Do Not try this at home.
You could remedy this by simply securing the feline engine in between the two surfaces by using the tail as a pivot point. Then it would only be able to spin about this central point.
But, it still wouldn't have a reason to do so. Trust me, cats don't do anything without a reason, except maybe lick their buttholes. That's why you need the buttered toast, because it pulls the cat's back toward the floor, forcing the cat to adjust to try to land on its feet.
This is just like FTL travel or Zero-Point Energy - everyone thinks they have a solution, because they don't understand the subtleties of the scientific theories. Just like relativity or quantum mechanics, there are laws governing the behavior of cats and buttered toast which cannot be ignored or circumvented.
First, I should mention that linoleum is a poor choice of catalyst for a BT-FAGE due to its easily-cleaned nature. For maximum attractive force to be applied to the buttered toast, a thick, luxurious, and very expensive carpet is preferred. In fact, despite the name, the best BT-FAGE proposals call for fruit preserves rather than butter.
Facinating idea! More research is called for immediately!
You, my friend, speak with the enthusiasm of someone who has never attempted to attach a piece of buttered toast to a cat. Don't worry, the scarring isn't (usually) permanent. The physical scarring, I mean. The emotional trauma lasts a lifetime for you, and nine for the cat.
I often found it odd that he didn't talk since he could play sounds in recordings just fine. He must have had some DSP capabilities or something. More importantly, he had the understanding of languages of all sorts. I think he just chose to beep instead.
A cassette player can play sounds, but can't talk. A mute can hear and understand languages without being able to talk. If you think about it, it makes a great deal of sense to build a robot that can recognize speech, but there's not much point in it talking back if its only responses will be things like "acknowledged" and "done". A few simple beep codes are much more efficient.
Nope, that won't work. The cat can then land, feet 'down', on either the above surface or the below surface. There is no force trying to attract the cat's back to one of the surfaces, like in the traditional BT-FAGE (Buttered Toast - Feline AntiGravity Engine) design.
Unfortunately, much research remains to be done before the BT-FAGE becomes reality. We are dealing with forces far beyond our present understanding of the universe. All experimenters who have attempted to harness these forces have ended up with multiple flesh wounds, covered in butter, or both.
Then A) the hospital or nuclear power plant or train or air traffic control system should be sued for negligence
That makes as much sense as suing me for negligence if I'm driving down the street, someone shoots me, and I run off the road and kill a kid on his bicycle.
and B) the DoS attacker can be sued for murder or attempted murder or terrorism or whatever is appropriate under the circumstances. Of course, I deny that such a situation is possible in the first place.
I wonder whether, under this bill, the MPAA or RIAA could be prosecuted in the event their actions caused this sort of damage. As far as whether it's possible, I know a radiologist who reads CAT scans and such from home when he's on call, but I'm not sure whether it's over the internet or on a dial-up line - and I would hope that they have a 'Plan B' for life-threatening situations.
Life critical systems should not rely on the internet, plain and simple.
No, but that doesn't mean the internet shouldn't be protected from attacks wherever possible. There are businesses large and small which rely on the internet to communicate and to conduct operations.
Also, there are already laws in place to cover this. Finally, it is outside the enumerated powers of the constitution to have laws regarding this.
There I have to agree. The computer crime code is basically useless; anything that can be prosecuted under it should have been prosecutable without it. If someone damages a person's property or deprive them of their livelihood, they should be held equally accountable whether they use a computer, a gun, or a salami.
This has gotten so messy that it reminds me of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict.
Oof. I agreed with your post right up to here. No one is dying because of p2p file sharing. File traders aren't blowing themselves up in public places, and the MPAA/RIAA aren't launching missiles at apartment complexes. I understand what you meant by the analogy, but I don't think it's a very good comparison given the horrible loss of life over there.
Why can't attorneys, politicians, and other entities who produce, edit, or distribute documents used or intended for use as legislation, contracts, or legal advice learn to write in such a manner so that their meanings, definitions, and ramifications can clearly be understood, intepreted, or explained by any person, company, or other entity, including but not limited to the avoidance of run-on sentences, unnecessary parenthetical phrases, and confusing usage of passive voice?
Anyway, IANAL either but it sounds like the law stated above isn't intended to require a company to do business with all purchasers, but rather to require them to provide the same service, support, and such to all purchasers.
The reason I say this is because it refers to discriminating "in favor of one purchaser against another purchaser" and states that all purchasers must be offered "proportionally equal terms" (whatever that means). It does not seem to address the issue of refusing to allow an entity to make the purchase in the first place.
I could very well be wrong, though. Lawyers have a vested interested in writing things that only they can interpret.
If it is the end of hardware hacking in Canada, you can place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the shopkeep. If the moron hadn't been selling pirate games along with the mod chips, he might have had a shot at a legitimate defense. Or, he might not have been arrested in the first place.
Moral of the Story: If you're engaging in practices of questionable legality, make sure you aren't also doing something that is undeniably illegal. example: If your entire CD collection is ripped to your hard drive, make sure your friends' CDs, 200 random tracks from Napster, and your kiddie porn collection aren't on there as well. Don't give the law an open door to nail your ass, and set a court precedent of prosecution for the questionable activity.
His name is Stephen, you might wish to use it in your future comments to look like less of an idiot. Also, knowing his name would be a good indicator that you've seen the commercials too many times, thus strengthening your case against him.
Honestly, though, if you're going to campaign against mass annoyance, there are far more deserving targets. You can easily find as many as 40 good candidates in the latest issue of Billboard magazine.
HP doesn't have anything remotely resembling a monopoly on printers. Just being No. 1 in a market doesn't make a company a monopoly. I can't find any numbers on the 'net that aren't part of an expensive report, but I can assure you that HP's market share in printers is far less than Microsoft's market share in operating systems.
I agree with you! This is one example of why women should NOT be CEO's or in any power postition whatsoever!
You're obviously a troll, but I'm going to play with your argument for a bit.
If this is a good enough reason for women to not be CEOs, then the Enron debacle is an example of why men should not be CEOs. Men are far too greedy and aggressive, too willing to lie and deceive to get their way, and spend too much time sexually harassing their secretaries to get any work done. Thus, since neither men nor women are qualified to be CEOs, I propose we dismantle all corporations until such time as we develop an AI suitable for administering their functions.
Bullpoop. No company, monopoly or not, can be required to do business with anyone. Besides, HP is not a monopoly, so even if there is some bizarro antitrust law I'm unaware of that forces monopolies to sell their products to competitors for resale, it wouldn't apply to HP.
Wow, thank you for the brilliant and insightful remark. Incidentally I'm pretty sure my mom's pussy didn't stink in 1929, as it did not exist yet. My grandmother's might have, but I can't very well ask her as she's no longer with us.
Slashdot Mirror
have you ever tried to navigate through Washington D.C.? Well, it's not like disting crops boy.
I've never disted crops. Never dusted crops either, but that's neither here nor there.
Is the difficulty of navigating D.C. the reason all our government officials seem to have a permanent look of confusion on their faces?
The point of this is that a signal may only propagate outwards until the total mass behind it exceeds a critical value (the location of this is called the "event horizon" in an analogy to black holes). At that point its deflection will equal more than 90 degrees...i.e. it will not go any farther from its point of origin.
Obviously this limit, if it exists, is more than several billion light years, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see galaxies that far away. So I don't think this is going to affect SETI too much.
Redskins have heap good maps.
What the hell does a crappy football team residing in the nation's capitol need maps for?
No, but it can hurt. You, that is, not the cat.
I should point out that what I meant by that is, the attempt to butter the feet will hurt you, not the cat. Obviously if you succeed in doing it, and then separate the buttered-feet cat from the floor by even a microscopic distance, the resulting destruction will hurt you and the cat.
Now that I've put some thought into it, I realize that the terrorists may read the above post and realize the potential for building a weapon. The Buttered Cat Feet Bomb. May God have mercy on us all.
I'm not an engineer, but could buttering the cat's feet help here?
No, but it can hurt. You, that is, not the cat.
If you butter the cat's feet, the cat-lands-on-feet force and the butter-hits-floor forces will reinforce each other, and most likely the cat will hit the floor feet first with the force of several nuclear weapons, destroying cat, floor, and anything within a radius of a few kilometers. Do Not try this at home.
You could remedy this by simply securing the feline engine in between the two surfaces by using the tail as a pivot point. Then it would only be able to spin about this central point.
But, it still wouldn't have a reason to do so. Trust me, cats don't do anything without a reason, except maybe lick their buttholes. That's why you need the buttered toast, because it pulls the cat's back toward the floor, forcing the cat to adjust to try to land on its feet.
This is just like FTL travel or Zero-Point Energy - everyone thinks they have a solution, because they don't understand the subtleties of the scientific theories. Just like relativity or quantum mechanics, there are laws governing the behavior of cats and buttered toast which cannot be ignored or circumvented.
First, I should mention that linoleum is a poor choice of catalyst for a BT-FAGE due to its easily-cleaned nature. For maximum attractive force to be applied to the buttered toast, a thick, luxurious, and very expensive carpet is preferred. In fact, despite the name, the best BT-FAGE proposals call for fruit preserves rather than butter.
Facinating idea! More research is called for immediately!
You, my friend, speak with the enthusiasm of someone who has never attempted to attach a piece of buttered toast to a cat. Don't worry, the scarring isn't (usually) permanent. The physical scarring, I mean. The emotional trauma lasts a lifetime for you, and nine for the cat.
I often found it odd that he didn't talk since he could play sounds in recordings just fine. He must have had some DSP capabilities or something. More importantly, he had the understanding of languages of all sorts. I think he just chose to beep instead.
A cassette player can play sounds, but can't talk. A mute can hear and understand languages without being able to talk. If you think about it, it makes a great deal of sense to build a robot that can recognize speech, but there's not much point in it talking back if its only responses will be things like "acknowledged" and "done". A few simple beep codes are much more efficient.
As someone who is sort of belong to the science community
All our AtomicBomb are belong to the science community?
Nope, that won't work. The cat can then land, feet 'down', on either the above surface or the below surface. There is no force trying to attract the cat's back to one of the surfaces, like in the traditional BT-FAGE (Buttered Toast - Feline AntiGravity Engine) design.
Unfortunately, much research remains to be done before the BT-FAGE becomes reality. We are dealing with forces far beyond our present understanding of the universe. All experimenters who have attempted to harness these forces have ended up with multiple flesh wounds, covered in butter, or both.
In the grand scheme of things, it didn't take them long to evolve from there into the 20mm Vulcan cannon firing 100 explosive rounds every second.
Sorry, but the M-61 A-1 20 MM Vulcan cannon fires 6,000 rounds per minute in air-to-air mode,
The phrase "six of one, half-a-dozen of the other" never seemed quite as appropriate as it does now.
Anyone read any good books lately?
Is that still allowed?
Let's just say you should memorize them all before the firemen get to the house.
Then A) the hospital or nuclear power plant or train or air traffic control system should be sued for negligence
That makes as much sense as suing me for negligence if I'm driving down the street, someone shoots me, and I run off the road and kill a kid on his bicycle.
and B) the DoS attacker can be sued for murder or attempted murder or terrorism or whatever is appropriate under the circumstances. Of course, I deny that such a situation is possible in the first place.
I wonder whether, under this bill, the MPAA or RIAA could be prosecuted in the event their actions caused this sort of damage. As far as whether it's possible, I know a radiologist who reads CAT scans and such from home when he's on call, but I'm not sure whether it's over the internet or on a dial-up line - and I would hope that they have a 'Plan B' for life-threatening situations.
Life critical systems should not rely on the internet, plain and simple.
No, but that doesn't mean the internet shouldn't be protected from attacks wherever possible. There are businesses large and small which rely on the internet to communicate and to conduct operations.
Also, there are already laws in place to cover this. Finally, it is outside the enumerated powers of the constitution to have laws regarding this.
There I have to agree. The computer crime code is basically useless; anything that can be prosecuted under it should have been prosecutable without it. If someone damages a person's property or deprive them of their livelihood, they should be held equally accountable whether they use a computer, a gun, or a salami.
This has gotten so messy that it reminds me of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict.
Oof. I agreed with your post right up to here. No one is dying because of p2p file sharing. File traders aren't blowing themselves up in public places, and the MPAA/RIAA aren't launching missiles at apartment complexes. I understand what you meant by the analogy, but I don't think it's a very good comparison given the horrible loss of life over there.
Why can't attorneys, politicians, and other entities who produce, edit, or distribute documents used or intended for use as legislation, contracts, or legal advice learn to write in such a manner so that their meanings, definitions, and ramifications can clearly be understood, intepreted, or explained by any person, company, or other entity, including but not limited to the avoidance of run-on sentences, unnecessary parenthetical phrases, and confusing usage of passive voice?
Anyway, IANAL either but it sounds like the law stated above isn't intended to require a company to do business with all purchasers, but rather to require them to provide the same service, support, and such to all purchasers.
The reason I say this is because it refers to discriminating "in favor of one purchaser against another purchaser" and states that all purchasers must be offered "proportionally equal terms" (whatever that means). It does not seem to address the issue of refusing to allow an entity to make the purchase in the first place.
I could very well be wrong, though. Lawyers have a vested interested in writing things that only they can interpret.
And I hardly think that a magazine like Billboard is a reasonable comparison -- you read a rag like that for the trashy ads.
I wasn't talking about the ads in Billboard. Your hint should have been the number 40. As in, Top 40.
If it is the end of hardware hacking in Canada, you can place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the shopkeep. If the moron hadn't been selling pirate games along with the mod chips, he might have had a shot at a legitimate defense. Or, he might not have been arrested in the first place.
Moral of the Story: If you're engaging in practices of questionable legality, make sure you aren't also doing something that is undeniably illegal. example: If your entire CD collection is ripped to your hard drive, make sure your friends' CDs, 200 random tracks from Napster, and your kiddie porn collection aren't on there as well. Don't give the law an open door to nail your ass, and set a court precedent of prosecution for the questionable activity.
Geez, and to think I got insulted for knowing his "stage" name.
I suppose "Ni!" would be out of the question then.
His name is Stephen, you might wish to use it in your future comments to look like less of an idiot. Also, knowing his name would be a good indicator that you've seen the commercials too many times, thus strengthening your case against him.
Honestly, though, if you're going to campaign against mass annoyance, there are far more deserving targets. You can easily find as many as 40 good candidates in the latest issue of Billboard magazine.
HP doesn't have anything remotely resembling a monopoly on printers. Just being No. 1 in a market doesn't make a company a monopoly. I can't find any numbers on the 'net that aren't part of an expensive report, but I can assure you that HP's market share in printers is far less than Microsoft's market share in operating systems.
I agree with you! This is one example of why women should NOT be CEO's or in any power postition whatsoever!
You're obviously a troll, but I'm going to play with your argument for a bit.
If this is a good enough reason for women to not be CEOs, then the Enron debacle is an example of why men should not be CEOs. Men are far too greedy and aggressive, too willing to lie and deceive to get their way, and spend too much time sexually harassing their secretaries to get any work done. Thus, since neither men nor women are qualified to be CEOs, I propose we dismantle all corporations until such time as we develop an AI suitable for administering their functions.
Bullpoop. No company, monopoly or not, can be required to do business with anyone. Besides, HP is not a monopoly, so even if there is some bizarro antitrust law I'm unaware of that forces monopolies to sell their products to competitors for resale, it wouldn't apply to HP.
Time to go to work
Work all night
Search for asteroids hey!
We won't stop until we have asteroids
Yum tum yummy tum hey!
Wow, thank you for the brilliant and insightful remark. Incidentally I'm pretty sure my mom's pussy didn't stink in 1929, as it did not exist yet. My grandmother's might have, but I can't very well ask her as she's no longer with us.