Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 1
Hey, I just wanted to say I thought it was really cool how you took the time to respond to some of these posts, and that you responded in the most clear, concise, rational, and most importantly, civil manner I've yet seen on the science vs. religion debates. Welcome to my friends list.
Wow, you just stuck a chord in me there too! My earliest memories are of being sick on the couch in my parents' house and getting medicated eyedrops, which I hated getting, cutting my leg open very bad with a Fischer Price toy doctor kit, (I still have the scar over 1/4 the length of my shin.) and having my parents explain to me that I was supposed to have surgery, (the next day?) which scared the hell out of me, even though I didn't quite understand what it was all about. I also remember that my parents got me a pink stuffed flamingo with a top hat, named 'Fairbanks', presumably to try and calm me. I still have the toy today.
All these memories were, I'd say when I was about 3 or 4 years old. I could have been a bit younger, but I doubt it from what I've read about the way the brain works. I certainly wasn't 5 yet, as by that time I was living elsewhere from where these events happened, and my parents were divorced. That, and I my *clear* memories start back at 5. In other words, 5 is where I stop having just a collection of random snapshots, and start having a clear recollection of most of the events of my life.
Perhaps there is a strong correlation between pain (or trauma in the case of my examples. Not all of them were actually painful.) and memory. I'm sure this parallel has been drawn before, but has it been drawn with earliest childhood memories?
While the article did come across as whiney and immature, I can say one thing for it: It was informative. I learned a bit about it, and honestly it's the first article on EQ I've read since the game came out that told me anything of any substance that I didn't already know. Granted, I've never played the game, but that's who the atricle is aimed at: those that have not played the game before. Myself and others like me. It reached it's intended audience.
Also, perhaps I need to re-read the article, but what makes you think that the author isn't a former player? What makes you think that he/she didn't quit already?
Um, that's not what the Karma system is for. It's not for *your* benefit, it's for slashdot's.
When you gain Karma, you get your nifty +1 posting bonus. This is because you have posted what the masses have deemed "good" and they don't mind hearing from you. When you get modded down, the reverse is true.
If you have the karma, use it. That's why it was given to you. Unless you know what you have to say is unimportant, and would be an abuse of the +1, or just not important enough to use it.
KARMA IS NOT FOR YOUR BENEFIT. If you thought this was useful info, then post as non AC, with your +1 bonus. That way more people see it.
The only real reason I can think of off the top of my head to post as AC is if you don't want to be identified, or linked to your post. In other words to protect your anonymity. It also alows casual users who haven't created an account to post in the forum, thereby getting more posts from non-core readers.
This is off topic, so I hope it gets modded as such. I just hope the person who posted it sees it, and anyone else who thinks like him / her.
Remember kids, the mod system is all a basis for the filtering system, which unless you're browsing at -1, you do use. That's why it's here, to bring the gold to the top and to filter out the garbage.
Hydrostatic shock as it's called, is a myth. Yes, some energy from a bullet can be transfered in the form of a shockwave, but it's such a small percentage as to be discounted.
The only place of any authority I've herd the term mentioned it from the USAF gunnery range training personel, who claimed that the main gun in the A-10 warthog had enough energy to actually do this.
Now, I'm not saying if they're right or wrong, but to their credit, there is more possibility of it being true in this case, then from say, small arms fire, since the weapon they're talking about fires 30mm depleted uranium shells, designed to kill fully armored tanks from the air.
Other than the word of the gunnery instructors, I have no evidence to back up this being anything more than a myth either, though it is far more likley to be true than small arms.
Then I converted the weight into grains and fed that into the calculator here. I got a result of 314102.56 Ft-Lbs. Convert that to joules and you get 425,865.873284 joules. Sigvigantly more than the 500 joules at the muzzle quoted for a 9mm hand gun shell.
Does this make it possible to have hydrostatic shock with this gun? I have no idea. I couldn't find the formulas. But we are talking about something with almost 1000 times the energy here. If it's not happening with that, it's not happening with anything.
This is what happens when I post right after waking up. I Rambel on without ever making a point.
Okay, I'm getting a little sick of you repeating yourself.
There are several ways to proov it. And problems with your arguments.
1) Go back to the moon.
This won't happen because of the huge expense. We don't have the infrastructure any more and it would be expensive to rebuild it. Then the costs of building the rockets and everything again. It would be nearly as expensive as the first time. There is no way the tax payers would flip that bill.
2) Do what you suggest and have another nation go.
Nearly impossible. If the U.S. won't flip this kind of bill, no other nation on earth will either.
3) Send probes to photograph the evidence.
Japan is doing this next year as a matter of fact. They will be launching a satellite called Selene into low lunar orbit that will photograph the surface with never before seen detail.
4) Bounce lasers off the reflectors the astronauts left there.
The problem here is that it is concievable that the reflectors were left there by probes. I'm sure this won't convince you. Never mind the fact that even the Soviets have tested this.
5) Analize the rocks that were brought back.
Oh, wait, this has been done and it has been conclusivly (and independantly) confirmed that the rocks spent *billions* of years in a low oxygen high radiation environment. Look it up if you don't believe me. NASA will be more than happy to provide you with a list of organazitions that got moon rocks from them for analysis.
6) Close analysis of the equipment designs. The equipment was built and used for SOMETHING. And three complete sets of equipment that never went up are on display. It's a simple matter to calculate if the equipment is capable of what NASA asserted it did.
Only one nation has stealh technology. Does it not exist either? It is a fraud? I've seen F-117s, B-1s, and an SR-71 (not really stealth, though it did have low observability characteristics). The F-117 and the B-1 I actually saw fly too.
Did I try to hit them with radar to see if I could get anything? No. I guess the diffrence between me and you is I'm able to take someone's explination for *how* something works, and parse it to see if it's logical, or if it's just voodoo jiberish. I've seen the Saturn V at Kenedy Space Center. And the LM. I've read volumes on how the systems were designed and built, and how NASA had basicly a blank check to get to the moon. (I Can't recoment "Angle of Attack" enough).
I mean come on! There's being skeptical, and then there's being stupid. Have you ever *personally* taken measurments on the planets and the stars and the sun and done the calculations to see if the Earth goes around the Sun, or if the Sun goes around the Earth? Because if you haven't, you're a hyprocrit. Never mind the evidence. Never mind that it's all out in the open for anyone to check (althoug admitidly, it's expensive to check).
What more do you want? You're just saying you want another nation to visit, because you think it's unlikley to happen (although the Chineese have anounced their intentions of doing so, that's years off. They have yet to launch a man into orbit yet).
The U.S. is the only country to do this for a very good reason. It's the same reason we're the only nation with a fleet of modern supercarries. We're the biggest power in the world. Nobody else could afford the luxury of paying for what amounted to an expensive PR program with scientific benefits. The Soviets were roughly equal in many ways when we went, but they lost the race, and elected not to wast the money continuing their costly lunar program. Now, nobody but us could go back. And even we would take the better part of a decade to go again.
Besides, why would you believe another nation? What makes you think they wouldn't lie too? Perhaps it's a big conspiracy! International! The UN wants you to believe! Trust no one!
How many times are you going to post the same garbage? Baed on your posting history you don't seem like a troll... yet in this story all the marks are there...
Others have been to the moon. But only the U.S. has landed people on the moon. The Soviets had a big program under way when we beat them. Unfortunatly, they had a number of catastrophies with their program. It was all done in secret and none of this came out until after the fall of the Soviet Union. They were perhaps a year or two behind us, but their program was rushed and they had a high degree of launch failure. When we beat them, they didn't see the point of continuing since the "prize" of world prestiege had already been won by the Americans.
China was quite far behind both the US and USSR until recently. (Look at their aerospace industry if you don't believe me) They are just now preparing to launch their first cosmonaut into orbit, let alone to the moon. Though they do have ambitious plans including the moon afterwards.
Sure you've only seen one video, but lost of independant nations have verified the presence of the laser reflectors placed by Apollo. And next year Japan will be sending a lunar satellite which will be the first to map with a resolution that won't just be able to see signs such as blast marks from the missions, but will actually be able to see the equipment still in place.
Someone else doesn't have to do it. Do you have any *idea* how much money we spent on it? There's a very good reason that nobody else has done this. The same reason nobody climbs Everest twice. (okay, I'm sure some people do, but you get the point: Once you've done it once, there's not as much reason to do it again, and it's just a dangerous expense.)
Do I know beond a shadow of doubt that nothing was faked? No, that would be a lie. But I know beond a *reasonable* doubt, that it is far more likley that we did go, given the evidence.
By that logic, Hiroshima never happened. It only happened once, there's no absolute proof, and it could be as fake as Alien Autopsy.
Oh wait, both happened more than once. There is absolute proof of both, and both amazingly are things that only the U.S. has done. There goes all your arguments. Next.
JACK: (V.O.) I'm a recall coordinator. My job is to apply the formula. It's a story problem.
TECHNICIAN #1: Here's where the infant went through the windshield. Three points.
JACK: (V.O.) A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 miles per hour. The rear differential locks up.
TECHNICIAN #2: The teenager's braces around the backseat ashtray would make a good "anti-smoking" ad.
JACK: (V.O.) The car crushes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: do we initiate a recall?
TECHNICIAN #1: The father's must've been huge. See how the fat burnt into the driver's seat with the polyester shirt? Very "modern art".
JACK: (V.O.) Take the number of vehicles in the field (A), multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X...
CUT TO:
INT. AIRPLANE CABIN - MOVING DOWN RUNWAY - NIGHT
Jack is speaking to the BUSINESSWOMAN next to him.
JACK: If X is less that the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
BUSINESSWOMAN: Are there a lot of these kinds of accident?
The Soviets have come close (I couldn't find a link, but I've read a couple books and seen a few documentaries on their secret scrapped program). They did land unmanned probes, and they scrapped their largely unsuccessful manned program for the same reason we canceled the Apollo program before we launched all the planned missions: Once someone won the race (the U.S.) there wasn't much point in going back again and again for little day trips.
As for proof, that's easy. The Apollo program has left laser reflectors on the moon. These reflectors have been 'pinged' by many organizations independent from NASA and the U.S. government, including schools and government programs in the U.K., France, Japan, and even the former Soviet Union (what reason would they possibly have to back up false U.S. claims?), Canada and others.
Anyone with the money to rent a properly equipped telescope and the necessary laser equipment can verify this. Including the skeptics.
As for the point about the abductees, I've never heard anyone assert (even Whitley Striber) that they're talking about numbers in the millions. You and I both know that it's technologically possible. That's (I think) not what's in dispute here. But there is, in my opinion, as much reason to believe that man went to the moon as there is to believe that we've gone to Antarctica. I've never been there. And unlike the moon, I've never met anyone who's claimed to have been there! That doesn't mean I don't believe we've gone. It's not an absurd claim. Alien abduction... well, I think of it like an afterlife or lots of religious concepts. I'd *love* to believe in it. I've love to believe that not only are there aliens (which I believe do exist. We probably aren't the only intelligent life in the universe), but they are here visiting us. But I don't. I see no evidence, nor do I see any reason to believe it's more likely than not. Just like I'd love to think that after I did, that's not it. But I see no reason to believe that that is anything more than wishful thinking.
They're working on smartlocks for guns too. It's imperfect technology too.
Sure there is such a thing as DRM. Windows Media and other formats support it. But NOTHING keeps me from playing a CD in my CD player, then outputing the analog audio into my mic jack and creating a new copy in MP3, or hell, even using a DRM enabled format such as Windows Media!
Here's the problem: Just like, you can't make a guy to make a decision as to weather shooting someone is wrong or right, you can't write software to do the same thing. Let's put aside DRM's main problems for a moment. What about non DRM formats? You can't just get rid of non DRM formats like MP3. It's like trying to take pee out of a pool. They're invented and now entrenched. The only way to protect against these things it so have clients "listen" to each song and try to identify the songs from a datbase. This is a HUGE technical challenge. Not only do you have to compensate for diffrent file sizes, different play lengths, (some MP3s may have an extra second or two of silence at the ends) diffrent bitrates, diffrent frequencies, etc. But you also have to figure out how the HELL to compensate for diffent performances. No Doubt once did a cover of REM's "This Is The End Of The World As We Know It". It's obviously (to a human) the same song, but the performance is dramaticly diffrent. Not to mention, that in order for a computer to recognize these songs, you'd have to have a database of every copyrighted song written EVER to compare against. Yeah, that's a small task. We're talking about mixing several seperate holy grail type technologies. Voice recognition (something computers are bad at) voice interpretation (something computers are bad at) pattern recognition (something computers are good at) with the ability to recognize subtle creative diffrences (something that computers are bad at) incorperating a massive database of records (something computers are very good at, but which would be an enormous undertaking to create), etc, etc, etc.
Then you get to one more problem after you've solved all the problems above: How do you make someone use a tool designed to stop them from doing what they want, when other tools exist?
If smart guns go into production, criminals will look for older guns. Same thing with smart-clients. Nothing will stop me from using an old version of a gnutella client, and an old version of winamp.
This is not as trivial a technical problem as you make it out to be. Wait until we have near perfect voice recognition (by near perfect, I don't mean 99.99%, I mean a mis-recognition rate as low or lower than humans) and the ability of computers to UNDERSTAND what they're being told. Then we'll be *close* to being able to have true DRM. Now, we're light years away from effective DRM.
Good point. I can see why it would work that way from MP3.com's (or whoever's) legal liability standpoint. But honestly, don't you think that you meet that requirement (as far as MP3.com is concerned) by simple checking the box that agrees to their TOS including verbage such as "I hereby swear and affirm that..."?
Okay, everyone else seems to like the gun vs p2p analogy, so I'll bite too...
A responsible P2P application would include some sort of technology designed to identify copyrighted material and not allow it to transfer.
A responsible firearm would include some sort of technology designed to identify innocent people and not allow it to shoot them.
What's the difference? Aside from the huge difference in consequences of shooting vs downloading, not much (from a tech standpoint). Both are problems that technology just can't currently fix. You can't write p2p software to identify copyrighted content any more readily than you can design a gun that refuses to fire at the good guys(TM). Both would be nice, but how do you implement either one?
Oh, by the way, I believe the reason he never said he was a doctor, is because he's not. He's a still a PA. He works in health care, and I suppose that mean's he's on the staff there. But he's not yet an MD.
You, sir. Are either a troll, or a dullard. I did some digging. All I really used was/., google and the Mayo Clinic's sites and I verified who the guy is. He's definatly legit, but I'm sure he doesn't want me posting all his personal contact info all over/.
And what are you talking about pseudoscience? The man makes perfect sense. Unless you think I'm talking about the article. I'm not, I'm refering to carlcmc.
Um, why in the world would a songwriter get $0.08 for distribution of a song by US law?!?
I can understand if the RIAA, or some guild or union has a rule or a bylaw to that effect. But that doesn't make sense to me for two reasons.
1) What reason would the Government of the United States of America have to get involved with something stupid like this. Not only paying songwriters, but setting a specific price by law? WTF? In 50 years when inflation makes that worth even less than it is now, will congress change the law to 20 cents?
2) Define a songwriter. If I write a stupid song about my trip to Walmart (let's call it Ode to Church Road), and then I perform it with my PC's mic, and share it via Gnutella. Does that make me a songwriter? If someone then downloads it, am I then automatically entitled to 8 cents? If I write a stupid song and then perform it, can I share the file loaded with keywords for porn and movies and other artists, so that unsuspecting people download it, and then rake in the money 8 cents at a time? Sure, by US law any time anyone writes a note on a napkin, that is automatically copyrighted, but that's a little different. That's just saying "you created this, so you own it". It's not saying "you created it, now someone got a copy you are owed $0.08."
This just doesn't make sense to me. You could be right, but can you provide any links or anything to back up this claim?
I did find a few links that say US law has a *CAP* on what a songwriter can charge in royalties of 8 cents per song. But that's not the same thing. That doesn't mean that a songwriter has to get paid at all. It just says that 8 cents is the most he or she can charge.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not defending copyright violation. If I rip my copy of Dr. Dre's The Chronic to MP3 and "share" it. Then that's illegal. Regardless of songwriter fees or not. Dre (or his record label at the time, or someone who is not me) owns the copyright on that album. I have received no licensee in writing, verbal, or implied to redistribute his works.
But, your example with the indy bands is flawed. Many indy bands write their own music. In which case, they don't have to charge anything for it. If they want to distribute it for free, they can do so, since the $0.08 figure is a maximum, not a minimum (unless you know something I don't, which I haven't completely discounted). What happens if My indy band (let's call them "Don't Throw Knives At Me", I like that name) wants to do a punk cover of The Unknown Stunt Man (theme to the TV show, The Fall Guy, written by David Somerville, Gail Jensen & Glen Larson and originally performed by Lee Majors)? Does my shitty indy band have to contact Somerville & company, or pay up to $0.08 for every song pressed? Well, as far as I can tell, yes. But my knowledge in this area it limited.
So where am I going with this rant? If someone breaks the law, you go after them. Simple. If Don't Throw Knives At Me records a punk cover of The Unknown Stuntman, we either owe the songwriter up to $0.08 per physical copy that gets distributed, or we have to work out a special deal with them. But if *I* write "Ode To Church Road", and perform it with Don't Throw Knives At Me, then I don't owe myself any money unless I say I do, which is stupid, because then I'd have to pay income tax on what I paid myself and I'd wind up loosing money (:
As to how one verifies that I didn't unconsciously plagiarize another song, that's stupid too. In this case, the burden of proof is on any accuser. The artist doesn't have to prove that each and every work they ever write is original. That's like having to prove documentation to prove that something I'm selling on ebay isn't stolen. It may or may not be a good idea, but it's not required. It can't be unless someone makes an accusation. And even then, I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser, is it not?
One last tangent:
I find this 8 cent law interesting. Until I read your post and did some digging, I was not previously aware of it. What I find interesting it the fact that it only applies to physical media, yet it applies to MP3s and other digital file based media. I'm assuming this is because unlike a radio broadcast (to which this statute does not apply) when you share via MP3, a new, permanent copy is made. But how is this different from me tape recording the song off of the radio (which is legal, I believe because of time shifting rulings, please correct me if I'm wrong)? Does a songwriter technically have to get a royalty off of that too?
Again, I'm not 100% sure on any of these points, this is just how it appears to me, based on the information I was able to gather and my ability to interpret it. Any lawyers in the house with relevant experience care to chime in?
In my mind, they could fix this one of two ways and I'd be happy.
1) Allow *true* unlimited internet access (upload/download, etc.) (preferable, but unlikley)
2) Just change the way they market their product. It's not my favorite of the two choices, but if they just go and be absolutly up front and say, hey, this is high speed internet access, but if you cause an excessive drain on our resources, we may throttle your bandwidth, or charge you extra.
Either would make me happy. Inderstand that bandwidth isn't free, and furthermore, it's not cheap. They do have a right to do something like this. The part that makes me unhappy is that they're not very up front about it.
To the AC who posted this, and to the moderator that bothered moding it up (true or not, why would you mod this up? It doesn't add to the discussion, it only serves to insult.) Sure, this is the internet. He (or she) may or may not be a doctor. But he certainly talksthetalk. And keeps his story straight.
Why is it so implausable to think that MAYBE they are what they say they are? If they slip up, and say something you know to be bullshit, sure. Rip them a new one, and I'll be next in line to join you. But please refrain from attacking anyone just because they mention having a sucessful career, or something else that's diffacult to obtain.
As the earlier poster said, it's from the movie Spinal Tap. And here, is the bit of dialog from the movie, which I shamelessly lifted from here
Nigel: This is a top to a, you know, what we use on stage, but it's very...very special because if you can see... Marty: Yeah... Nigel:...the numbers all go to eleven. Look...right across the board. Marty:Ahh...oh, I see.... Nigel: Eleven...eleven...eleven.... Marty:...and most of these amps go up to ten.... Nigel: Exactly. Marty:Does that mean it's...louder? Is it any louder? Nigel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most...most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here...all the way up...all the way up.... Marty:Yeah.... Nigel:...all the way up. You're on ten on your guitar...where can you go from there? Where? Marty:I don't know.... Nigel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is if we need that extra...push over the cliff...you know what we do? Marty:Put it up to eleven. Nigel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder. Marty:Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number...and make that a little louder? Nigel:...these go to eleven.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I just wanted to say I thought it was really cool how you took the time to respond to some of these posts, and that you responded in the most clear, concise, rational, and most importantly, civil manner I've yet seen on the science vs. religion debates. Welcome to my friends list.
Okay, I'll bite. Where did God come from? Who / What created God?
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, VIOLENCE LEADS TO VIDEO GAMES!!!
(Sorry, couldn't resist).
lameness filter... too many caps... blah blah blah
Wow, you just stuck a chord in me there too! My earliest memories are of being sick on the couch in my parents' house and getting medicated eyedrops, which I hated getting, cutting my leg open very bad with a Fischer Price toy doctor kit, (I still have the scar over 1/4 the length of my shin.) and having my parents explain to me that I was supposed to have surgery, (the next day?) which scared the hell out of me, even though I didn't quite understand what it was all about. I also remember that my parents got me a pink stuffed flamingo with a top hat, named 'Fairbanks', presumably to try and calm me. I still have the toy today.
All these memories were, I'd say when I was about 3 or 4 years old. I could have been a bit younger, but I doubt it from what I've read about the way the brain works. I certainly wasn't 5 yet, as by that time I was living elsewhere from where these events happened, and my parents were divorced. That, and I my *clear* memories start back at 5. In other words, 5 is where I stop having just a collection of random snapshots, and start having a clear recollection of most of the events of my life.
Perhaps there is a strong correlation between pain (or trauma in the case of my examples. Not all of them were actually painful.) and memory. I'm sure this parallel has been drawn before, but has it been drawn with earliest childhood memories?
While the article did come across as whiney and immature, I can say one thing for it: It was informative. I learned a bit about it, and honestly it's the first article on EQ I've read since the game came out that told me anything of any substance that I didn't already know. Granted, I've never played the game, but that's who the atricle is aimed at: those that have not played the game before. Myself and others like me. It reached it's intended audience.
Also, perhaps I need to re-read the article, but what makes you think that the author isn't a former player? What makes you think that he/she didn't quit already?
Posted as AC 'cause I have plenty of karma.
Um, that's not what the Karma system is for. It's not for *your* benefit, it's for slashdot's.
When you gain Karma, you get your nifty +1 posting bonus. This is because you have posted what the masses have deemed "good" and they don't mind hearing from you. When you get modded down, the reverse is true.
If you have the karma, use it. That's why it was given to you. Unless you know what you have to say is unimportant, and would be an abuse of the +1, or just not important enough to use it.
KARMA IS NOT FOR YOUR BENEFIT. If you thought this was useful info, then post as non AC, with your +1 bonus. That way more people see it.
The only real reason I can think of off the top of my head to post as AC is if you don't want to be identified, or linked to your post. In other words to protect your anonymity. It also alows casual users who haven't created an account to post in the forum, thereby getting more posts from non-core readers.
This is off topic, so I hope it gets modded as such. I just hope the person who posted it sees it, and anyone else who thinks like him / her.
Remember kids, the mod system is all a basis for the filtering system, which unless you're browsing at -1, you do use. That's why it's here, to bring the gold to the top and to filter out the garbage.
Hydrostatic shock as it's called, is a myth. Yes, some energy from a bullet can be transfered in the form of a shockwave, but it's such a small percentage as to be discounted.
The only place of any authority I've herd the term mentioned it from the USAF gunnery range training personel, who claimed that the main gun in the A-10 warthog had enough energy to actually do this.
Now, I'm not saying if they're right or wrong, but to their credit, there is more possibility of it being true in this case, then from say, small arms fire, since the weapon they're talking about fires 30mm depleted uranium shells, designed to kill fully armored tanks from the air.
Other than the word of the gunnery instructors, I have no evidence to back up this being anything more than a myth either, though it is far more likley to be true than small arms.
Just out of curiosity, I looked up the weight of the depleted uranium shells (0.74844 kg or 1.65 Lbs), and their muzzle velocity (1067 m/s or 3500 Ft/s).
Then I converted the weight into grains and fed that into the calculator here. I got a result of 314102.56 Ft-Lbs. Convert that to joules and you get 425,865.873284 joules. Sigvigantly more than the 500 joules at the muzzle quoted for a 9mm hand gun shell.
Does this make it possible to have hydrostatic shock with this gun? I have no idea. I couldn't find the formulas. But we are talking about something with almost 1000 times the energy here. If it's not happening with that, it's not happening with anything.
This is what happens when I post right after waking up. I Rambel on without ever making a point.
Que será será.
Well said!
Use Text. You *CAN* do that you know! And it doesn't even have to look plain if you know what you're doing.
Okay, I'm getting a little sick of you repeating yourself.
There are several ways to proov it. And problems with your arguments.
1) Go back to the moon.
This won't happen because of the huge expense. We don't have the infrastructure any more and it would be expensive to rebuild it. Then the costs of building the rockets and everything again. It would be nearly as expensive as the first time. There is no way the tax payers would flip that bill.
2) Do what you suggest and have another nation go.
Nearly impossible. If the U.S. won't flip this kind of bill, no other nation on earth will either.
3) Send probes to photograph the evidence.
Japan is doing this next year as a matter of fact. They will be launching a satellite called Selene into low lunar orbit that will photograph the surface with never before seen detail.
4) Bounce lasers off the reflectors the astronauts left there.
The problem here is that it is concievable that the reflectors were left there by probes. I'm sure this won't convince you. Never mind the fact that even the Soviets have tested this.
5) Analize the rocks that were brought back.
Oh, wait, this has been done and it has been conclusivly (and independantly) confirmed that the rocks spent *billions* of years in a low oxygen high radiation environment. Look it up if you don't believe me. NASA will be more than happy to provide you with a list of organazitions that got moon rocks from them for analysis.
6) Close analysis of the equipment designs. The equipment was built and used for SOMETHING. And three complete sets of equipment that never went up are on display. It's a simple matter to calculate if the equipment is capable of what NASA asserted it did.
Only one nation has stealh technology. Does it not exist either? It is a fraud? I've seen F-117s, B-1s, and an SR-71 (not really stealth, though it did have low observability characteristics). The F-117 and the B-1 I actually saw fly too.
Did I try to hit them with radar to see if I could get anything? No. I guess the diffrence between me and you is I'm able to take someone's explination for *how* something works, and parse it to see if it's logical, or if it's just voodoo jiberish. I've seen the Saturn V at Kenedy Space Center. And the LM. I've read volumes on how the systems were designed and built, and how NASA had basicly a blank check to get to the moon. (I Can't recoment "Angle of Attack" enough).
I mean come on! There's being skeptical, and then there's being stupid. Have you ever *personally* taken measurments on the planets and the stars and the sun and done the calculations to see if the Earth goes around the Sun, or if the Sun goes around the Earth? Because if you haven't, you're a hyprocrit. Never mind the evidence. Never mind that it's all out in the open for anyone to check (althoug admitidly, it's expensive to check).
What more do you want? You're just saying you want another nation to visit, because you think it's unlikley to happen (although the Chineese have anounced their intentions of doing so, that's years off. They have yet to launch a man into orbit yet).
The U.S. is the only country to do this for a very good reason. It's the same reason we're the only nation with a fleet of modern supercarries. We're the biggest power in the world. Nobody else could afford the luxury of paying for what amounted to an expensive PR program with scientific benefits. The Soviets were roughly equal in many ways when we went, but they lost the race, and elected not to wast the money continuing their costly lunar program. Now, nobody but us could go back. And even we would take the better part of a decade to go again.
Besides, why would you believe another nation? What makes you think they wouldn't lie too? Perhaps it's a big conspiracy! International! The UN wants you to believe! Trust no one!
How many times are you going to post the same garbage? Baed on your posting history you don't seem like a troll... yet in this story all the marks are there...
Others have been to the moon. But only the U.S. has landed people on the moon. The Soviets had a big program under way when we beat them. Unfortunatly, they had a number of catastrophies with their program. It was all done in secret and none of this came out until after the fall of the Soviet Union. They were perhaps a year or two behind us, but their program was rushed and they had a high degree of launch failure. When we beat them, they didn't see the point of continuing since the "prize" of world prestiege had already been won by the Americans.
China was quite far behind both the US and USSR until recently. (Look at their aerospace industry if you don't believe me) They are just now preparing to launch their first cosmonaut into orbit, let alone to the moon. Though they do have ambitious plans including the moon afterwards.
Sure you've only seen one video, but lost of independant nations have verified the presence of the laser reflectors placed by Apollo. And next year Japan will be sending a lunar satellite which will be the first to map with a resolution that won't just be able to see signs such as blast marks from the missions, but will actually be able to see the equipment still in place.
Someone else doesn't have to do it. Do you have any *idea* how much money we spent on it? There's a very good reason that nobody else has done this. The same reason nobody climbs Everest twice. (okay, I'm sure some people do, but you get the point: Once you've done it once, there's not as much reason to do it again, and it's just a dangerous expense.)
Do I know beond a shadow of doubt that nothing was faked? No, that would be a lie. But I know beond a *reasonable* doubt, that it is far more likley that we did go, given the evidence.
By that logic, Hiroshima never happened. It only happened once, there's no absolute proof, and it could be as fake as Alien Autopsy.
Oh wait, both happened more than once. There is absolute proof of both, and both amazingly are things that only the U.S. has done. There goes all your arguments. Next.
JACK: (V.O.) I'm a recall coordinator. My job is to apply the formula. It's a story problem.
TECHNICIAN #1: Here's where the infant went through the windshield. Three points.
JACK: (V.O.) A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 miles per hour. The rear differential locks up.
TECHNICIAN #2: The teenager's braces around the backseat ashtray would make a good "anti-smoking" ad.
JACK: (V.O.) The car crushes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: do we initiate a recall?
TECHNICIAN #1: The father's must've been huge. See how the fat burnt into the driver's seat with the polyester shirt? Very "modern art".
JACK: (V.O.) Take the number of vehicles in the field (A), multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X...
CUT TO:
INT. AIRPLANE CABIN - MOVING DOWN RUNWAY - NIGHT
Jack is speaking to the BUSINESSWOMAN next to him.
JACK: If X is less that the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
BUSINESSWOMAN: Are there a lot of these kinds of accident?
JACK: You wouldn't believe.
BUSINESSWOMAN: Which car company do you work for?
JACK: A major one.
The Soviets have come close (I couldn't find a link, but I've read a couple books and seen a few documentaries on their secret scrapped program). They did land unmanned probes, and they scrapped their largely unsuccessful manned program for the same reason we canceled the Apollo program before we launched all the planned missions: Once someone won the race (the U.S.) there wasn't much point in going back again and again for little day trips.
As for proof, that's easy. The Apollo program has left laser reflectors on the moon. These reflectors have been 'pinged' by many organizations independent from NASA and the U.S. government, including schools and government programs in the U.K., France, Japan, and even the former Soviet Union (what reason would they possibly have to back up false U.S. claims?), Canada and others.
Anyone with the money to rent a properly equipped telescope and the necessary laser equipment can verify this. Including the skeptics.
As for the point about the abductees, I've never heard anyone assert (even Whitley Striber) that they're talking about numbers in the millions. You and I both know that it's technologically possible. That's (I think) not what's in dispute here. But there is, in my opinion, as much reason to believe that man went to the moon as there is to believe that we've gone to Antarctica. I've never been there. And unlike the moon, I've never met anyone who's claimed to have been there! That doesn't mean I don't believe we've gone. It's not an absurd claim. Alien abduction... well, I think of it like an afterlife or lots of religious concepts. I'd *love* to believe in it. I've love to believe that not only are there aliens (which I believe do exist. We probably aren't the only intelligent life in the universe), but they are here visiting us. But I don't. I see no evidence, nor do I see any reason to believe it's more likely than not. Just like I'd love to think that after I did, that's not it. But I see no reason to believe that that is anything more than wishful thinking.
They're working on smartlocks for guns too. It's imperfect technology too.
Sure there is such a thing as DRM. Windows Media and other formats support it. But NOTHING keeps me from playing a CD in my CD player, then outputing the analog audio into my mic jack and creating a new copy in MP3, or hell, even using a DRM enabled format such as Windows Media!
Here's the problem: Just like, you can't make a guy to make a decision as to weather shooting someone is wrong or right, you can't write software to do the same thing. Let's put aside DRM's main problems for a moment. What about non DRM formats? You can't just get rid of non DRM formats like MP3. It's like trying to take pee out of a pool. They're invented and now entrenched. The only way to protect against these things it so have clients "listen" to each song and try to identify the songs from a datbase. This is a HUGE technical challenge. Not only do you have to compensate for diffrent file sizes, different play lengths, (some MP3s may have an extra second or two of silence at the ends) diffrent bitrates, diffrent frequencies, etc. But you also have to figure out how the HELL to compensate for diffent performances. No Doubt once did a cover of REM's "This Is The End Of The World As We Know It". It's obviously (to a human) the same song, but the performance is dramaticly diffrent. Not to mention, that in order for a computer to recognize these songs, you'd have to have a database of every copyrighted song written EVER to compare against. Yeah, that's a small task. We're talking about mixing several seperate holy grail type technologies. Voice recognition (something computers are bad at) voice interpretation (something computers are bad at) pattern recognition (something computers are good at) with the ability to recognize subtle creative diffrences (something that computers are bad at) incorperating a massive database of records (something computers are very good at, but which would be an enormous undertaking to create), etc, etc, etc.
Then you get to one more problem after you've solved all the problems above: How do you make someone use a tool designed to stop them from doing what they want, when other tools exist?
If smart guns go into production, criminals will look for older guns. Same thing with smart-clients. Nothing will stop me from using an old version of a gnutella client, and an old version of winamp.
This is not as trivial a technical problem as you make it out to be. Wait until we have near perfect voice recognition (by near perfect, I don't mean 99.99%, I mean a mis-recognition rate as low or lower than humans) and the ability of computers to UNDERSTAND what they're being told. Then we'll be *close* to being able to have true DRM. Now, we're light years away from effective DRM.
Good point. I can see why it would work that way from MP3.com's (or whoever's) legal liability standpoint. But honestly, don't you think that you meet that requirement (as far as MP3.com is concerned) by simple checking the box that agrees to their TOS including verbage such as "I hereby swear and affirm that..."?
Okay, everyone else seems to like the gun vs p2p analogy, so I'll bite too...
A responsible P2P application would include some sort of technology designed to identify copyrighted material and not allow it to transfer.
A responsible firearm would include some sort of technology designed to identify innocent people and not allow it to shoot them.
What's the difference? Aside from the huge difference in consequences of shooting vs downloading, not much (from a tech standpoint). Both are problems that technology just can't currently fix. You can't write p2p software to identify copyrighted content any more readily than you can design a gun that refuses to fire at the good guys(TM). Both would be nice, but how do you implement either one?
Oh, by the way, I believe the reason he never said he was a doctor, is because he's not. He's a still a PA. He works in health care, and I suppose that mean's he's on the staff there. But he's not yet an MD.
You, sir. Are either a troll, or a dullard. I did some digging. All I really used was /., google and the Mayo Clinic's sites and I verified who the guy is. He's definatly legit, but I'm sure he doesn't want me posting all his personal contact info all over /.
And what are you talking about pseudoscience? The man makes perfect sense. Unless you think I'm talking about the article. I'm not, I'm refering to carlcmc.
Um, why in the world would a songwriter get $0.08 for distribution of a song by US law ?!?
:
I can understand if the RIAA, or some guild or union has a rule or a bylaw to that effect. But that doesn't make sense to me for two reasons.
1) What reason would the Government of the United States of America have to get involved with something stupid like this. Not only paying songwriters, but setting a specific price by law? WTF? In 50 years when inflation makes that worth even less than it is now, will congress change the law to 20 cents?
2) Define a songwriter. If I write a stupid song about my trip to Walmart (let's call it Ode to Church Road), and then I perform it with my PC's mic, and share it via Gnutella. Does that make me a songwriter? If someone then downloads it, am I then automatically entitled to 8 cents? If I write a stupid song and then perform it, can I share the file loaded with keywords for porn and movies and other artists, so that unsuspecting people download it, and then rake in the money 8 cents at a time? Sure, by US law any time anyone writes a note on a napkin, that is automatically copyrighted, but that's a little different. That's just saying "you created this, so you own it". It's not saying "you created it, now someone got a copy you are owed $0.08."
This just doesn't make sense to me. You could be right, but can you provide any links or anything to back up this claim?
I did find a few links that say US law has a *CAP* on what a songwriter can charge in royalties of 8 cents per song. But that's not the same thing. That doesn't mean that a songwriter has to get paid at all. It just says that 8 cents is the most he or she can charge.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not defending copyright violation. If I rip my copy of Dr. Dre's The Chronic to MP3 and "share" it. Then that's illegal. Regardless of songwriter fees or not. Dre (or his record label at the time, or someone who is not me) owns the copyright on that album. I have received no licensee in writing, verbal, or implied to redistribute his works.
But, your example with the indy bands is flawed. Many indy bands write their own music. In which case, they don't have to charge anything for it. If they want to distribute it for free, they can do so, since the $0.08 figure is a maximum, not a minimum (unless you know something I don't, which I haven't completely discounted). What happens if My indy band (let's call them "Don't Throw Knives At Me", I like that name) wants to do a punk cover of The Unknown Stunt Man (theme to the TV show, The Fall Guy, written by David Somerville, Gail Jensen & Glen Larson and originally performed by Lee Majors)? Does my shitty indy band have to contact Somerville & company, or pay up to $0.08 for every song pressed? Well, as far as I can tell, yes. But my knowledge in this area it limited.
So where am I going with this rant? If someone breaks the law, you go after them. Simple. If Don't Throw Knives At Me records a punk cover of The Unknown Stuntman, we either owe the songwriter up to $0.08 per physical copy that gets distributed, or we have to work out a special deal with them. But if *I* write "Ode To Church Road", and perform it with Don't Throw Knives At Me, then I don't owe myself any money unless I say I do, which is stupid, because then I'd have to pay income tax on what I paid myself and I'd wind up loosing money (
As to how one verifies that I didn't unconsciously plagiarize another song, that's stupid too. In this case, the burden of proof is on any accuser. The artist doesn't have to prove that each and every work they ever write is original. That's like having to prove documentation to prove that something I'm selling on ebay isn't stolen. It may or may not be a good idea, but it's not required. It can't be unless someone makes an accusation. And even then, I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser, is it not?
One last tangent:
I find this 8 cent law interesting. Until I read your post and did some digging, I was not previously aware of it. What I find interesting it the fact that it only applies to physical media, yet it applies to MP3s and other digital file based media. I'm assuming this is because unlike a radio broadcast (to which this statute does not apply) when you share via MP3, a new, permanent copy is made. But how is this different from me tape recording the song off of the radio (which is legal, I believe because of time shifting rulings, please correct me if I'm wrong)? Does a songwriter technically have to get a royalty off of that too?
Again, I'm not 100% sure on any of these points, this is just how it appears to me, based on the information I was able to gather and my ability to interpret it. Any lawyers in the house with relevant experience care to chime in?
Sources:
Texas Tech University
House.gov
MOD PARENT UP!!! I've been drooling over this company's 3D LCDs since the late 90s. You can buy one now from DTI. Up to 18"!
No, but I'm quite excited about the prospect of this getting a decent market penetration (to make developing content for it worth while).
I tend to agree up to a point.
In my mind, they could fix this one of two ways and I'd be happy.
1) Allow *true* unlimited internet access (upload/download, etc.) (preferable, but unlikley)
2) Just change the way they market their product. It's not my favorite of the two choices, but if they just go and be absolutly up front and say, hey, this is high speed internet access, but if you cause an excessive drain on our resources, we may throttle your bandwidth, or charge you extra.
Either would make me happy. Inderstand that bandwidth isn't free, and furthermore, it's not cheap. They do have a right to do something like this. The part that makes me unhappy is that they're not very up front about it.
To the AC who posted this, and to the moderator that bothered moding it up (true or not, why would you mod this up? It doesn't add to the discussion, it only serves to insult.) Sure, this is the internet. He (or she) may or may not be a doctor. But he certainly talks the talk. And keeps his story straight.
Why is it so implausable to think that MAYBE they are what they say they are? If they slip up, and say something you know to be bullshit, sure. Rip them a new one, and I'll be next in line to join you. But please refrain from attacking anyone just because they mention having a sucessful career, or something else that's diffacult to obtain.
As the earlier poster said, it's from the movie Spinal Tap. And here, is the bit of dialog from the movie, which I shamelessly lifted from here
...the numbers all go to eleven. Look...right across the board. ...all the way up. You're on ten on your guitar...where can you go from there? Where? ...these go to eleven.
Nigel: This is a top to a, you know, what we use on stage, but it's very...very special because if you can see...
Marty: Yeah...
Nigel:
Marty:Ahh...oh, I see....
Nigel: Eleven...eleven...eleven....
Marty:...and most of these amps go up to ten....
Nigel: Exactly.
Marty:Does that mean it's...louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most...most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here...all the way up...all the way up....
Marty:Yeah....
Nigel:
Marty:I don't know....
Nigel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is if we need that extra...push over the cliff...you know what we do?
Marty:Put it up to eleven.
Nigel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty:Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number...and make that a little louder?
Nigel: