Re:They should learn lessons, but use money elsewh
on
Voyager Keeps on Trucking
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
... especially since our next chance wouldn't come for at least 20 more years, if we launched a mission right now.
Not even. Voyager 2 used four gravity assists off of the giant planets to build up speed. Even IF we launched today, we couldn't get to Uranus or Neptune with conventional rockets. The configuration of the planets that allowed the multiple-assist grand tour of the solar system (giving the two Voyager probes more delta-V than we can with today's (or even tomorrow's) technology) only occurs once every ~180 years.
To quote a NASA mission scientist on Voyager, "the last time this was possible, Jefferson was President. And boy, did he blow it."
Well, perhaps you have to consider whether posting source and compiling it are different.
This brings up the interesting case of Microsoft products... If I post virus source in my research article, and you read it with IE, am I liable for YOUR computer compiling and running my virus? Or are YOU? Or is it, maybe, BILL?
Something that I think would be a strong argument is to say that "computer companies will no longer find the United States to be a good climate for business."
Seriously. If I were *insert corp name here* and some government passed a stupid law that would cost me millions of dollars to comply with AND would piss off my customers, I'd pack up and move.
I believe that the way contracts work (at least in Canada, anyway) is that there has to be some exchange of "consideration" (something of value). This is why buying a car from a family member or somesuch involves an exchange of $1 - the token consideration.
I know that in this country, if the consideration has been exchanged, the contract is considered to be agreed to and executed by both parties. Don't agree, don't accept (or give) the money.
So yes, you'd be able to tell your employer to go take a flying leap.
IANAL, but I believe this is a (very old) bit of British Common Law and probably applies in the UK, US, Australia, etc. as well as Canada.
Just think, we have the shuttles, its the only way we are going to go to mars any time soon and not have johnny taxpayer pay about a zillion dollars for it.
Actually, the shuttle is a collossal waste of money - it costs an unearthly sum for every launch. The Shuttle lifts about 100 tons, which is impressive, until you recall that 80 of those tons are Orbiter that glide back down. So you get 20 tons of payload. For $600M.
Yuck.
A better way to design a reusable spacecraft is to make the BOTTOM stages recyclable. This way you waste less of your energy lifted stuff that doesn't need to stay up.
See Robert Zubrin's book "Entering Space" if you want solid details from someone who really knows what he's talking about.
As for Mars, the Shuttle hardly has the thrust capacity to get into a lunar transfer orbit, let alone one to Mars. Johnny Taxpayer shelling out is the best solution. New technologies need to be developed for interplanetary flight. Plain and simple. Now, the total cost of doing this, in dollars per taxpayer per year, is very affordable.
So I agree that the US needs to get its act together. By spending more on space.
As far as commercialisation goes, kudos to the Russians. That's cool.
Well, as far as PIONEER 10 goes, the answer is probably no. It's moving too slowly to hit any interesting features (that we know about) before its batteries fail.
Voyagers 1 and 2, on the other hand, are headed for the heliopause. The heliopause is where the solar wind meets the interstellar medium. The ISM is probably quite different than the energetic particles the sun spews out. They should be out into interstellar space in the near future (less than 10 years). The good news is, they're still operating well! Voyager 2 is unfortuantely running low on propellant, though.
And/. eds, make sure you have real spacecraft:). Voyagers 1 and 2 are headed at high speed out of the solar system. What would have been Voyager 3 is in the Smithsonian. And Voyager 6 is pure Gene Roddenberry:)
Simple. Students have a right to not submit their work to turnitin.com. They cannot claim ownership of papers that have not been submitted to them.
If a student's instructor submits the paper to turnitin.com, I do not see how they can claim ownership. Simply put, my instructor can't give up my property rights. Only I can do that. This follows along the same lines as my friends not being able to give away my car.
I don't really see a problem here. If you don't like their TOS, don't use them. The Free Market economy will take care of the rest.
What we really need is more data. Various examinations of the winding problem have been made, and most reasonable solutions lead to very tightly wound spiral arms, if there are any at all. We don't see this, though. We now have this galaxy with arms "trailing" in the same direction as its motion...
Hopefully we'll be able to take this and turn it into a more accurate model of what a galaxy IS so that we can then figure out why it DOES what it does.
Entropy is defined as kB * ln(Omega), where kB is Boltzmann's constant (measured) and Omega is the "multiplicty" of the system.
The multiplicity is defined as the total number of states that the system can be in at its current energy. If you increase the energy, Omega increases enormously and Entropy (S) rises as well (by more so than the energy did, in most cases, and always by the at least the amount E did).
So, basically, you use combinatronics to calculate Omega, take the natural logarithm, multiply by Boltzmann's constant, and you have the entropy. You can then verify this number experimentally.
Isn't the Mathematical Physicist Gibbs the God Emperor of Thermodynamics?
Gibbs, Helmholtz and Carnot, yes.
"but it is also a mathematical theorem (such as, say, "a + b = b + a")."
I'm guessing he probably proved this idea - no?
Actually, that was a bad example. a + b = b + a is a field axiom. A more useful theorem would be , say,
Limit as (x -> a) of (A + B) =
Limit as (x -> a) of A + Limit as (x -> a) of B
Basically, a theorem is always true if the axioms of your theory are true.
What that means is that a result like the 2nd law is true if you accept that: (a) combinatronics works and (b) your system consists of discrete particles which can occupy a variety of energy levels. I put "can" in bold, because they don't have to be doing that at the time you're looking at it for the 2nd law to be true - it just has to be possible. This is how we get cool states of matter like Bose-Einstein condensates.
What you're saying here is that because A implies B therefore (not B) implies (not A). That is incorrect reasoning.
No, that's what I meant and it's correct.
What it says is "if you have A, then you always have B. So, if you don't have B, then you can't be having A."
Pretty straight forward, actually.
The Szilard engine (a one-particle heat engine) is capable of turning entropy into useful work. It is prevented from violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics because its memory capacity is finite (erasing memory must be associated with an increase in entropy).
100 years ago if you would have told me there were going to be atomic bombs, microwave ovens,...
While you're certainly correct about these things, I believe that this case is different.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, as pointed out by the the parent's poster, is a statistical law. However, it is not only a statistical law derived from experiment (such as, say, "General Relativity agrees with 100.0% of experiments done to date"), but it is also a mathematical theorem (such as, say, "a + b = b + a"). I can believe that a given law of science could be proven wrong. For a theorem which is as deeply rooted as the 2nd law (which is a result of combinatronics), though... This would require mathematics as we know it to topple.
To be honest, I think it is beyond possibility. This, incidentally, also means that the First Law (conservation of energy) is true as well. If energy is perfectly conserved in an ideal system, the change in entropy is zero. If the 2nd law were false and the change in entropy could be less than zero, energy conservation would also have failed.
So, like any theorem, there are conditions that must be met before it is true. What are the 2nd law's conditions?
Answer: Your system must consist of discrete particles that can be in any one of several states. The states do not have to be equally probable. The more particles you have, the more statistically insignificant any deviations from the mean become. Ergo, when you're looking at something macroscopic (like, say, a "free energy machine"), you'll be looking at ~10^(24 or 25) particles... WHICH IS PLENTY.
Sure, it is possible for the entropy in such a system to spontaneously decrease, but it unimaginably, overwhelmingly unlikely. It is very likely that the entropy will increase up to a certain maximum. Therefore, even if you got extraordinarily lucky and saw the entropy drop, it would soon bounce back up again.
That's the 2nd law in a nutshell...
As far as the Zero Point energy goes, I'm a little more fuzzy. Didn't Guth predict that if the energy in empty space fell to absolute zero it would undergo inflationary expansion? I remember reading that somewhere... Anyone?
Probably this is not 100% exact, as we're in a relativistic context here, rather than a classical one, but we can still presume that gravity inside the sphere would be much weaker than outside.
Yep. But this is a sketchy line of reasoning. Even outside of the event horizons of Schwarzchild black holes, there is a region where stable orbits cannot exist. So, if this thing has mass equal to that of a Schwarzchild hole smeared into a thin shell, it will act like a point mass to someone outside (neglecting tidal effects, which are also non-neglible around a black hole:) ). Now, if the mass of the object is gravitationally bound into the shape of a shell, how does the shell remain in a stable orbit? It seems to me that this is an unstable sort of object, and is doomed to collapse into a black hole.
Of course, I don't know all that much about meshing GR with QM (not that anyone does...), so I could be totally wrong:)
because time / speed of light is 'apparently' slower in gravitational fields
Indeed. This prediction is a result of trying to integrate a function through points where the value is infinite, and then dividing that result by another infinite number.
The end is result is, to use the beautiful terminology of a Mathematician, "indeterminate."
The conventional interpretation of this results is that the theory cannot reliably predict the behaviour of the universe at points like this. Given the total lack of experimental evidence in regards to these phenomenon, I'd say that's a safe bet.
The same sort of thing happens when you try to calculate the total energy in a cavity (due to heat) using a classical theory. It tells you "infinity." What that means is "you should have used Quantum Mechanics."
... does anyone know which issue of PRL this article is supposed to appear in? I'm working on a paper surveying the state of black hole theory, and it'd be kinda nice to include a good reference:)
I'll say more after I've had a chance to read it carefully... Gonna have to track down a copy of Weinberg to follow the research article, by the looks of it:)
Putting identical telescopes in both hemispheres is an excellent step for science - this will allow quality observations to be made over the entire sky.
The next logical step would be to build 3 or 4 identical scopes in each hemisphere. This would let you observe an object 24hrs a day (with a redundant observatory, perhaps, in case of clouds).
A truly smart person probably wouldn't belive that terrorist action would accomplish their goals
I tend to disagree. The historical record shows numerous examples of successful "terrorism." For instace, the Vandals who sacked Rome in the 4th century could be called "terrorists." Or, perhaps, look at the IRA in Northern Ireland. Years of terrorism resulted in a strong negotiating position for Sinn Fein, their political wing. Perhaps you prefer the example of the PLO, which terrorised Israel for decades and now makes up the rulers of a (very marginal) Palestinian state. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela led a "terrorist" organisation that fought against apartheid. He is now an international hero.
Perhaps, if modern terminology existed at the time, the British would have seen the American Revolution as an act of "terrorism." Certainly the French Revolution was full of such acts, and suceeded in bringing down the monarchy (at which point they elected Napoleon Emperor, but that's another story).
I think there are two points here
"terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder
terrorism has, in the past, accomplished political goals
Therefore, I think it is unreasonable to say that a "truly smart person" would never choose terrorism. Perhaps a "truly desparate person," but an intelligent person would choose an effective method. One such method is terrorism.
Furthermore, I doubt that al-Qaeda fighters see themselves as terrorist. I find it much more likely that they think of themselves as "patriots" or "holy warriors" or some such...
So let's be fair - al-Qaeda isn't a fount of pure evil that corrupts the minds of innocent youth, but a result of human choices.
But everyone seems to conveniently ignore the fact that this group DID rely on the export strength encryption that they had available.
You're argument that the average al-Qaeda member isn't as technically literate as the average/. reader is logical, and probably true (provided we drop the Trolls from the sample). It may be that al-Qaeda was using 40-bit export-grade crypto because they didn't know any better.
However, you can bet they won't make that mistake twice now that they've lost an operative (and, probably more relevant, missed their target). These people may not be technically inclined, but they certainly ARE intelligent and they LEARN from their mistakes (compare, for example, the '93 WTC bombing to Sept. 11).
Of course, all of this assumes that al-Qaeda was giving the orders in the first place, which has yet to be proven.
Ok, ok, I'll take the flamebait... Hopefully this'll be educational or something...
the equation size depends on what font you use. I've seen it fit on the head of a pin.
Granted. Your point, however, is completely irrelevant. I've seen the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica crammed onto one CD-ROM. That doesn't make it any less complex. This is the point made by blair1q. The equation is difficult to solve, and probably do-able only by using numerical methods. This gives you an approximation to arbitrary accuracy, depending on how much time you have to waste calculating.
The earth's rotation has nothing to do with it, because the moon's revolution around the earth is in complete lockstep with the Earth's rotation. This is why there is a dark side of the moon that light never gets to.
You're right about the lockstep part. The Earth's rotation, however, is being constantly slowed down by - everyone's favorite - friction! The tides created by the moon in Earth's oceans cause friction when the water runs over the ocean floor. This force, albeit small, is always in a direction opposite to the Earth's rotation. Hence, the Earth is slowed and will eventually become tidally locked with the moon, just like the moon is locked with us.
Yes it is. Until you can PROVE the crazy ideas like "the earth's shape changes", Ockham's Razor says that I'M RIGHT.
Every seen a mountain range? Compare the Rockies to the Appalaichans. The Rockies are jagged, newly formed. The Appalaichans have eroded significantly. Hence, their SHAPE HAS CHANGED. As mountains are a part of the Earth,...
Let me teach you a little equation about relativity. It's called e=mc^2. It means that even though the mass of the earth isn't constant, neither is the mass of the moon. Consequently, everything washes out--everything's relative.
Furthermore, Earth's shape and mass change everytime we're nailed by a meteoroid. Whether it burns up in the atmosphere (and contributes gaseous mass) or hits the ground (and adds extra pebbles), Earth masses rises by this process.
Of course, we can lose mass to the atmosphere escaping too. Hell, I suppose everytime a nuclear fission reaction happens in a power plant, we lose a little mass.
Your point that this will all balance out in the end is ill-founded. Why would you expect mass-loss to be equal to mass-gain? The processes by which it happens seem unrelated to me. Neglecting the effects of atmospheric leakage and fission (and everything else I forgot to think of - like space launches), you could argue that all mass from meteors and dust comes from the moon originally, thus conserving the Earth-Moon system's mass. Unfortunately, we keep finding rocks from Mars, the Belt, or elsewhere. So no dice there. The system is not closed.
Tell me how to get to your house from the
telescope and I'll tell you how to get to the moon.
I find this unlikely unless you're the designer of powerful rocket motors, such as the F-1 or the SSME.
Anyway, I think that's enough ranting for one day:)
Slashdot Mirror
... especially since our next chance wouldn't come for at least 20 more years, if we launched a mission right now.
Not even. Voyager 2 used four gravity assists off of the giant planets to build up speed. Even IF we launched today, we couldn't get to Uranus or Neptune with conventional rockets. The configuration of the planets that allowed the multiple-assist grand tour of the solar system (giving the two Voyager probes more delta-V than we can with today's (or even tomorrow's) technology) only occurs once every ~180 years.
To quote a NASA mission scientist on Voyager, "the last time this was possible, Jefferson was President. And boy, did he blow it."
Well, perhaps you have to consider whether posting source and compiling it are different.
This brings up the interesting case of Microsoft products... If I post virus source in my research article, and you read it with IE, am I liable for YOUR computer compiling and running my virus? Or are YOU? Or is it, maybe, BILL?
Law is murky...
Something that I think would be a strong argument is to say that "computer companies will no longer find the United States to be a good climate for business."
Seriously. If I were *insert corp name here* and some government passed a stupid law that would cost me millions of dollars to comply with AND would piss off my customers, I'd pack up and move.
Send that alarmist direct mail!
Hmm... Now only if we had some help from Yahoo... I hear they have millions of subscribers who "opted-in" for direct mail...
The movie is... campy. There are lots of great one-liners and a ton of overacting.
It's kind of the Matrix meets Evil Dead. If you're into cheesy, campy horror/action flicks (like I am) you'll love it!
I believe that the way contracts work (at least in Canada, anyway) is that there has to be some exchange of "consideration" (something of value). This is why buying a car from a family member or somesuch involves an exchange of $1 - the token consideration.
I know that in this country, if the consideration has been exchanged, the contract is considered to be agreed to and executed by both parties. Don't agree, don't accept (or give) the money.
So yes, you'd be able to tell your employer to go take a flying leap.
IANAL, but I believe this is a (very old) bit of British Common Law and probably applies in the UK, US, Australia, etc. as well as Canada.
Just think, we have the shuttles, its the only way we are going to go to mars any time soon and not have johnny taxpayer pay about a zillion dollars for it.
Actually, the shuttle is a collossal waste of money - it costs an unearthly sum for every launch. The Shuttle lifts about 100 tons, which is impressive, until you recall that 80 of those tons are Orbiter that glide back down. So you get 20 tons of payload. For $600M.
Yuck.
A better way to design a reusable spacecraft is to make the BOTTOM stages recyclable. This way you waste less of your energy lifted stuff that doesn't need to stay up.
See Robert Zubrin's book "Entering Space" if you want solid details from someone who really knows what he's talking about.
As for Mars, the Shuttle hardly has the thrust capacity to get into a lunar transfer orbit, let alone one to Mars. Johnny Taxpayer shelling out is the best solution. New technologies need to be developed for interplanetary flight. Plain and simple. Now, the total cost of doing this, in dollars per taxpayer per year, is very affordable.
So I agree that the US needs to get its act together. By spending more on space.
As far as commercialisation goes, kudos to the Russians. That's cool.
Just curious about what it's actually doing with the propellant. Attitude adjustments, maybe?
Yep. It's keeping the dish pointed at Earth (which moves, of course). This allows it to send and receive data.
Well, as far as PIONEER 10 goes, the answer is probably no. It's moving too slowly to hit any interesting features (that we know about) before its batteries fail.
/. eds, make sure you have real spacecraft :). Voyagers 1 and 2 are headed at high speed out of the solar system. What would have been Voyager 3 is in the Smithsonian. And Voyager 6 is pure Gene Roddenberry :)
Voyagers 1 and 2, on the other hand, are headed for the heliopause. The heliopause is where the solar wind meets the interstellar medium. The ISM is probably quite different than the energetic particles the sun spews out. They should be out into interstellar space in the near future (less than 10 years). The good news is, they're still operating well! Voyager 2 is unfortuantely running low on propellant, though.
Find updates at the Voyager Project Homepage.
And
Where are the rights of the student?
Simple. Students have a right to not submit their work to turnitin.com. They cannot claim ownership of papers that have not been submitted to them.
If a student's instructor submits the paper to turnitin.com, I do not see how they can claim ownership. Simply put, my instructor can't give up my property rights. Only I can do that. This follows along the same lines as my friends not being able to give away my car.
I don't really see a problem here. If you don't like their TOS, don't use them. The Free Market economy will take care of the rest.
Quintopoly? Interesting, but I think the word you're looking for is:
:)
Cartel
Webster's 10th Ed says:
2 : a combination of independent commerical or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices
Sound like anyone we know?
What we really need is more data. Various examinations of the winding problem have been made, and most reasonable solutions lead to very tightly wound spiral arms, if there are any at all. We don't see this, though. We now have this galaxy with arms "trailing" in the same direction as its motion...
Hopefully we'll be able to take this and turn it into a more accurate model of what a galaxy IS so that we can then figure out why it DOES what it does.
Sure can!
:)
Entropy is defined as kB * ln(Omega), where kB is Boltzmann's constant (measured) and Omega is the "multiplicty" of the system.
The multiplicity is defined as the total number of states that the system can be in at its current energy. If you increase the energy, Omega increases enormously and Entropy (S) rises as well (by more so than the energy did, in most cases, and always by the at least the amount E did).
So, basically, you use combinatronics to calculate Omega, take the natural logarithm, multiply by Boltzmann's constant, and you have the entropy. You can then verify this number experimentally.
Very solid ground indeed
... This is the same Comcast that wouldn't hunt down Code Red-infected machines on their network? Seems that one's a whole lot easier than the others.
And what about folks running, say, Red Hat? NAT can easily be enabled even if it isn't doing anything.
*smack* Silly Comcast.
Isn't the Mathematical Physicist Gibbs the God Emperor of Thermodynamics?
Gibbs, Helmholtz and Carnot, yes.
"but it is also a mathematical theorem (such as, say, "a + b = b + a")."
I'm guessing he probably proved this idea - no?
Actually, that was a bad example. a + b = b + a is a field axiom. A more useful theorem would be , say,
Limit as (x -> a) of (A + B) =
Limit as (x -> a) of A + Limit as (x -> a) of B
Basically, a theorem is always true if the axioms of your theory are true.
What that means is that a result like the 2nd law is true if you accept that: (a) combinatronics works and (b) your system consists of discrete particles which can occupy a variety of energy levels. I put "can" in bold, because they don't have to be doing that at the time you're looking at it for the 2nd law to be true - it just has to be possible. This is how we get cool states of matter like Bose-Einstein condensates.
What you're saying here is that because A implies B therefore (not B) implies (not A). That is incorrect reasoning.
No, that's what I meant and it's correct.
What it says is "if you have A, then you always have B. So, if you don't have B, then you can't be having A."
Pretty straight forward, actually.
The Szilard engine (a one-particle heat engine) is capable of turning entropy into useful work. It is prevented from violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics because its memory capacity is finite (erasing memory must be associated with an increase in entropy).
Yep. Really cool little result.
This is great! We can integrate into Woz's new handheld - and you'll be able to work at the local bar, no matter where you happen to be travelling!
I can feel my productivity rising...
100 years ago if you would have told me there were going to be atomic bombs, microwave ovens,...
While you're certainly correct about these things, I believe that this case is different.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, as pointed out by the the parent's poster, is a statistical law. However, it is not only a statistical law derived from experiment (such as, say, "General Relativity agrees with 100.0% of experiments done to date"), but it is also a mathematical theorem (such as, say, "a + b = b + a"). I can believe that a given law of science could be proven wrong. For a theorem which is as deeply rooted as the 2nd law (which is a result of combinatronics), though... This would require mathematics as we know it to topple.
To be honest, I think it is beyond possibility. This, incidentally, also means that the First Law (conservation of energy) is true as well. If energy is perfectly conserved in an ideal system, the change in entropy is zero. If the 2nd law were false and the change in entropy could be less than zero, energy conservation would also have failed.
So, like any theorem, there are conditions that must be met before it is true. What are the 2nd law's conditions?
Answer: Your system must consist of discrete particles that can be in any one of several states. The states do not have to be equally probable. The more particles you have, the more statistically insignificant any deviations from the mean become. Ergo, when you're looking at something macroscopic (like, say, a "free energy machine"), you'll be looking at ~10^(24 or 25) particles... WHICH IS PLENTY.
Sure, it is possible for the entropy in such a system to spontaneously decrease, but it unimaginably, overwhelmingly unlikely. It is very likely that the entropy will increase up to a certain maximum. Therefore, even if you got extraordinarily lucky and saw the entropy drop, it would soon bounce back up again.
That's the 2nd law in a nutshell...
As far as the Zero Point energy goes, I'm a little more fuzzy. Didn't Guth predict that if the energy in empty space fell to absolute zero it would undergo inflationary expansion? I remember reading that somewhere... Anyone?
Probably this is not 100% exact, as we're in a relativistic context here, rather than a classical one, but we can still presume that gravity inside the sphere would be much weaker than outside.
:) ). Now, if the mass of the object is gravitationally bound into the shape of a shell, how does the shell remain in a stable orbit? It seems to me that this is an unstable sort of object, and is doomed to collapse into a black hole.
:)
Yep. But this is a sketchy line of reasoning. Even outside of the event horizons of Schwarzchild black holes, there is a region where stable orbits cannot exist. So, if this thing has mass equal to that of a Schwarzchild hole smeared into a thin shell, it will act like a point mass to someone outside (neglecting tidal effects, which are also non-neglible around a black hole
Of course, I don't know all that much about meshing GR with QM (not that anyone does...), so I could be totally wrong
because time / speed of light is 'apparently' slower in gravitational fields
Indeed. This prediction is a result of trying to integrate a function through points where the value is infinite, and then dividing that result by another infinite number.
The end is result is, to use the beautiful terminology of a Mathematician, "indeterminate."
The conventional interpretation of this results is that the theory cannot reliably predict the behaviour of the universe at points like this. Given the total lack of experimental evidence in regards to these phenomenon, I'd say that's a safe bet.
The same sort of thing happens when you try to calculate the total energy in a cavity (due to heat) using a classical theory. It tells you "infinity." What that means is "you should have used Quantum Mechanics."
... does anyone know which issue of PRL this article is supposed to appear in? I'm working on a paper surveying the state of black hole theory, and it'd be kinda nice to include a good reference :)
:)
I'll say more after I've had a chance to read it carefully... Gonna have to track down a copy of Weinberg to follow the research article, by the looks of it
Putting identical telescopes in both hemispheres is an excellent step for science - this will allow quality observations to be made over the entire sky.
The next logical step would be to build 3 or 4 identical scopes in each hemisphere. This would let you observe an object 24hrs a day (with a redundant observatory, perhaps, in case of clouds).
Anyway, all in all, it's very exciting work!
I tend to disagree. The historical record shows numerous examples of successful "terrorism." For instace, the Vandals who sacked Rome in the 4th century could be called "terrorists." Or, perhaps, look at the IRA in Northern Ireland. Years of terrorism resulted in a strong negotiating position for Sinn Fein, their political wing. Perhaps you prefer the example of the PLO, which terrorised Israel for decades and now makes up the rulers of a (very marginal) Palestinian state. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela led a "terrorist" organisation that fought against apartheid. He is now an international hero.
Perhaps, if modern terminology existed at the time, the British would have seen the American Revolution as an act of "terrorism." Certainly the French Revolution was full of such acts, and suceeded in bringing down the monarchy (at which point they elected Napoleon Emperor, but that's another story).
I think there are two points here
Therefore, I think it is unreasonable to say that a "truly smart person" would never choose terrorism. Perhaps a "truly desparate person," but an intelligent person would choose an effective method. One such method is terrorism.
Furthermore, I doubt that al-Qaeda fighters see themselves as terrorist. I find it much more likely that they think of themselves as "patriots" or "holy warriors" or some such...
So let's be fair - al-Qaeda isn't a fount of pure evil that corrupts the minds of innocent youth, but a result of human choices.
But everyone seems to conveniently ignore the fact that this group DID rely on the export strength encryption that they had available.
/. reader is logical, and probably true (provided we drop the Trolls from the sample). It may be that al-Qaeda was using 40-bit export-grade crypto because they didn't know any better.
You're argument that the average al-Qaeda member isn't as technically literate as the average
However, you can bet they won't make that mistake twice now that they've lost an operative (and, probably more relevant, missed their target). These people may not be technically inclined, but they certainly ARE intelligent and they LEARN from their mistakes (compare, for example, the '93 WTC bombing to Sept. 11).
Of course, all of this assumes that al-Qaeda was giving the orders in the first place, which has yet to be proven.
Ok, ok, I'll take the flamebait... Hopefully this'll be educational or something...
...
:)
the equation size depends on what font you use. I've seen it fit on the head of a pin.
Granted. Your point, however, is completely irrelevant. I've seen the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica crammed onto one CD-ROM. That doesn't make it any less complex. This is the point made by blair1q. The equation is difficult to solve, and probably do-able only by using numerical methods. This gives you an approximation to arbitrary accuracy, depending on how much time you have to waste calculating.
The earth's rotation has nothing to do with it, because the moon's revolution around the earth is in complete lockstep with the Earth's rotation. This is why there is a dark side of the moon that light never gets to.
You're right about the lockstep part. The Earth's rotation, however, is being constantly slowed down by - everyone's favorite - friction! The tides created by the moon in Earth's oceans cause friction when the water runs over the ocean floor. This force, albeit small, is always in a direction opposite to the Earth's rotation. Hence, the Earth is slowed and will eventually become tidally locked with the moon, just like the moon is locked with us.
Yes it is. Until you can PROVE the crazy ideas like "the earth's shape changes", Ockham's Razor says that I'M RIGHT.
Every seen a mountain range? Compare the Rockies to the Appalaichans. The Rockies are jagged, newly formed. The Appalaichans have eroded significantly. Hence, their SHAPE HAS CHANGED. As mountains are a part of the Earth,
Let me teach you a little equation about relativity. It's called e=mc^2. It means that even though the mass of the earth isn't constant, neither is the mass of the moon. Consequently, everything washes out--everything's relative.
Furthermore, Earth's shape and mass change everytime we're nailed by a meteoroid. Whether it burns up in the atmosphere (and contributes gaseous mass) or hits the ground (and adds extra pebbles), Earth masses rises by this process.
Of course, we can lose mass to the atmosphere escaping too. Hell, I suppose everytime a nuclear fission reaction happens in a power plant, we lose a little mass.
Your point that this will all balance out in the end is ill-founded. Why would you expect mass-loss to be equal to mass-gain? The processes by which it happens seem unrelated to me. Neglecting the effects of atmospheric leakage and fission (and everything else I forgot to think of - like space launches), you could argue that all mass from meteors and dust comes from the moon originally, thus conserving the Earth-Moon system's mass. Unfortunately, we keep finding rocks from Mars, the Belt, or elsewhere. So no dice there. The system is not closed.
Tell me how to get to your house from the
telescope and I'll tell you how to get to the moon.
I find this unlikely unless you're the designer of powerful rocket motors, such as the F-1 or the SSME.
Anyway, I think that's enough ranting for one day