Even if it is a socket 7 (and I don't know), you wouldn't just be able to pop it into a 200 MHz mother board, and expect it to work properly.
Firstly, the motherboard contains a number of chips that have to work at approximatly the same speed as the processor, eg DRAM contoller, PCI bus etc.
Also, last time I checked, the clock multiplication was done by the motherboard, not the processor (else how do you overclock)?
And the real kicker is the voltage. Faster chips use a lower voltage.
For the most part, it is fairly normal to upgrade the processor and motherboard at the same time. Unless you upgrade processors _really_ often (say, 3-6 months).
The obscene Regulation of Investagoatory Powers bill, all about electronic freedom (And poetically shortened to RIP) allows a person to use an electronic signature to sign legal documents.
This is not law yet.
Therefore, in the UK, an electronic signature is not legally binding.
Besides, RIP states that the electronic signature is a cryptographic device.
In short, Napsters thingy is bogus, for all UK citizens.
Um, maybe it's just me, but it strikes me that that's a very poor solution. Rather than stopping untrusted scripts from being launched, without making it bloody clear that they could be malicuous (all it would take is a simple dialog box, defaulting to not bothering), you'd preffer a system that scans for virus signatures?
But that's a totally re-active solution. That is, there is nothing that you can do to prevent the damage - only stop it spreading.
Fixing the email client to have a clue might actually _stop_ the problem, rather than shoring up a holed dyke.
A hard drives heads are shaped so that they 'fly' over the surface. In other words, in order to actually have a relieable spacing of the heads above the platter, they utilise the Bernoulli efect (you know, same thing that keeps aircraft up). There is something of the order of 100 air 'molecules' between the head and the platter. It's spaced that much to allow for variation in head head (if you knocked it and caused a head crash, you wouldn't be impressed, would you?).
I do recall that someone (Western Digital?) a few years ago (about 7 or so) reported on filling a harddrive with a liquid, that is more viscous than air. This allowed the head to platter spacing to be reduced, as the more visquius liquid is a better shock adsorber. I belive they had a working prototype at one molecule above the surface. Advantage of this is that it allow more precise control of applied force, and better spatial location of magnetic domainms (IOW - higher data density)
The person who wrote the program was not a professional programmer. Her was a professional judge. I quote from the New Scientist's piece on it:
A keen programmer, Feu Rosa wrote the E-Judge program in the Visual Basic language. It presents the judge with multiple choice questions, such as "Did the driver stop at the red light?" or "Had the driver been drinking alcohol above the acceptable limit of the law?"
So, why didn't this amateur programmer use prolog? Because prolog is a crap language. Unless you are an expert system specialist. The VB program looks nice, and does no logic more than a traffic light control program.
In short, despite the fact the media report it as an AI program, it's not. That's why an AI language wasn't used. This is plainly evident from the New Scientist web page.
[Aside: Why do people trust the BBC's Sci-Tech web pages? They are, without exception, the worst reporting mechanism for science and technology news. The BBC generally is poor in that area, and litters articles with inaccuracies and bad reporting]
When you go to a shop and take a CD copy of an dalbum, and give them money, is that a commercial transaction? (Answear: Yes)
If you paid them 'in kind' (i.e. with goods or services, instead of money) would that still be a commercial transaction? (Answear: Yes)
So why is paying for one MP3 file with another not a comercial transaction?
[Aside: Yes, a major difference with this may be that the person from whom you obtain your MP3 does not nessiscarily download one from your collection. However, your are _offering_ your MP3 collection in return for the MP3 (ie giveing a service), which probably counts]
I'm not a liscened lawyer in the USA. Nor, in fact in any other country. Any person taking what I say as legal advice needs to send me lots of money.
Ah, but to go along with the draconian laws that the RIP bill is, there is a little diamond in the rough.
The Data protection act. Basically, if any UK organisation (not just a company, any org) wants to store personal data about me on a computer, they have to get my signature on a piece of paper, giving them permision. In other words, such a scheme in the UK must be opt-in.
Additionally, they _have_ to let you view _all_ the data you hold on them, for a nominal fee.
(Oh, IANAL, that's just how I precieve it to work, as someone whose tangled briefly with it)
So, how does this releate? Well, look at the they way they let you see your personal data:
Any subscriber on The Predictive Network has the right to view their Digital Silhouette free of charge twice during the calendar year. Subscribers will be charged $50.00 per request thereafter.
Note the two free views. This is so that they can link the Silhouette with a person (or maybe I'm just a bit cynical). After that, you pay through the nose. In UK, assuming it's sent via email, I believe the maximum they can charge is one pound (Those values are typical from companies that snail mail the data to you. They may not be able to charge even that much). Thier planned method of limiting acess to the data they hold is illegal in the UK.
Other nice touches - it would have to be (technically) opt-in. Admitingly, they can be rather sneaky about it - it's now common to have a small box on any form you send to a company, and if you _don't_ tick the box, they have your permision to sell your data. However, it's trivial to tick the box and stop them.
Data protection act - As far as I have seen, it's good for individuals, and bad for companies.
Oh, and there are a number of prosecutions each year under this act - in other words, this has teeth.
Your outlined solution would result in the spam they send you being totally pointless.
They still collect the data.
They still sell that to companies (I presume, else they have no revenue generation).
Your solution will only work if virtually everyone generated noise. That would mean that the return from the companies that purchase the data would drop, they stop buying it, and then they have no revenue - they stop.
However, the same logic can be applied to banner ads. If there was a program available to to block banner adds, and people used it, then the advertisers would get no return, and thus they stop paying for useless ads.
There is such a program - Junkbuster, or relatives. They've been around a while. But banner ads still exist. So, not enough people use it.
If not enough people will use something that gets rid of an eyesore, why would they suddenly use a program to defeat something they can't see?
In summary, a noise generating program will only give you a more diverse range of spam. It doesn't solve the problem. --
... the man says that there are Linux DVD players "on the market".
However you want to read that, to me that suggests that I can get one now. Not some time soon (And that's 'soon' in software release dates, which we all know never slip).
In other words, I reckon he was talking flying monkeys. --
I thought of this too. However, there is a logical solution - Internet broadcasters pay only for the land area not convered by radio transmisions.
Yeah, this does lead into some other, odd, conclusions, but it's the only logical solution.
That's not to say it's fair.
In the UK, each (electromagnetic) radio station pays a fee to a central board for each piece of music they broadcast, and that depends on the size of the station. (IIRC for a national station, it's ten pounds). I belive that a similar fee is applied for an internet radio station, although the only internet radion operator I know of in the UK is the BBC, which is slightly different anyway. --
A POSSIBILITY OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCE SHIELDING BY BULK YBA2CU3O7-X SUPERCONDUCTOR
PODKLETNOV_E, NIEMINEN_R
PHYSICA C, 1992, Vol.203, No.3-4, pp.441-444
Shielding properties of single-phase dense bulk superconducting ceramics of YBa2Cu3O7-x against the gravitational force were studied at temperatures below 77 K. A small non-conducting and non-magnetic sample weighing 5.48 g was placed over a levitating superconducting disk and the loss of weight was measured with high precision using an electro-optical balance system. The sample was found to lose from 0.05 to 0.3% of its weight, depending on the rotation speed of the superconducting disk. Partial loss of weight might be the result of a certain state of energy which exists inside the crystal structure of the superconductor at low temperatures. The unusual state of energy might have changed a regular interaction between electromagnetic, nuclear and gravitational forces inside a solid body and is responsible for the gravity shielding effect.
Note that that the loss of weight is _not_ in the superconductor it'self, but in another piece of material held above it. Further, this sample is specifically stated to be non-conductin and non magnetic. In other words, all the theories I've just read on here about magnetic effects have been excluded (Unless you want to claim that the diamagnetic effect lead to this 0.3% reduction in weight. If so, he shouldn't bother with the gravity shielding, cos that's one helluva magnet).
Also note that it is explicetly _not_ antigravity. It is a gravity shilding effect. This, whilst I don't believe that it is predicted by relaticity theroy (that's not my field), does not lead to the contradictions inherent in true anti-gravity.
Firstly, the notion of bearing your soul and your abuse to a group of strangers is ridiculous in itself. These folks need to deal with professional counsellors who can really help them, not a bunch of wannabe psychologists hanging out in newsgroups giving out bad advice.
You two points here: one, that they should be looking for support from anyone other than a professional, and two, because of one, they don't need anonymity.
From your post I belive that you have never had to stand up in front of someone, and admit you need emotional help. Whilst I think that everyone would agree that it _shouldn't_ be difficult, that doesn't mean it isn't.
Whilst not suffering from abuse (thankfully), I have experience of this, due to disfigurment by a medical condition. You cannot understand the relief that goes with talking to others in a similar position (purely a "you are not alone anymore" feeling) until you've been in such a situation.
'Victim support' is not profesional councelling, and does not try to be. It is often a nessecary first step before professional counciling can be saught.
Anonymity makes the whole process easier, when you know you can talk frankly and openly, without fear of ridicule or embarasment.
Like physical scars, emotional scars never heal, they just hurt less with time. Most people preffer to keep thier scars hidden. --
for some people to order data or keys to be given up.
Now, whilst I'm not a lawyer, here's my thoughts on reading the bill.
Part 1 sets up a register of 'approved providers of cryptographic support services'.
Interestingly, you don't need to be providing any service in the UK, to apply for approval. (Para 2.1 b ).
Part 2 allows the use of a digital signature, as a legal indicator if identity.
Para 7.2 basically says that if it looks like the signature is ment to be attatched, then it is. Given that you can use either a chunck of random data, or a procedure applied to the signature, (Para 7.3), and it must be certified as per para 7.1, it looks to me like you could, if you can packet sniff and spoof, read a message, then send a second message, claiming to be a signature of the sender, to the recipient. The reciptent would then be able to certify that signature, and, ta-da, you can sign that person up to what you want, with legal force. Fair? I have seen no point in the bill that states that the sender must certify his signature.
Part 3 is ther meaty bit - this is the part that allows your data / keys to be taken.
There are a number of mechanisms for getting authorisation to do such - two by my counting, as detailed in Schedule 1.
1 - Secretary of State, or a Judge, JP, Sheriff[0] etc issues a warrent.
2 - With written permission, but no actual warrent from same as above, or something along those lines[1].
These methods have various sub conditions, depending if they have your data, or if they think you are about to get encrypted data (which is enough for them to get a warrent to force you to decrypt it).
There's a particularly worrying batch of legalese in schedlue 1, that suggests that they don't always need a warrent, and can act on the say so of a senior polic officer, customs and excise commisioner, or, worryingly, a senior member of the military. The latter bit worries me a lot.
Hopefully my reading of it is wrong, anyone want to confirm?
[0] A Sheriff is a local magistrate, not a law enforecment offical (in Scotland)
[1] A particulary contorted batach of legalese in Schedule 1.2 - 1.4 --
What you do is take your anti-proton, and then make a proton orbit it, in a manner exactly analogus to a conventional atom. They don't touch, so they do not anhilate. The anti-proton orbits at a radius much closer than that of the electron in hydrogen (due to it's much greater mass. In fact it's mor accurate to say that they orbit around a common centre of mass).
This configuration is stable, until you excite the system, to seperate the two constituents, and allow them to recombine. This is exactly analogus to the photoelectric effect, and can be done by application of electromagnetic radiation (I belive that it's somewhere in the ultraviolet range, all though it might need to be x-rays).
The system is pretty stable, as things go. Until made in bulk, it's impossable to say how stable, but predictions show that the rate of spontaneus decay is low enough to be a viable system of antimatter containment.
This as the nice advantage that all you need to do to liberate energy is irradiate it, and it presents no more containment problems than, say, tritium.
I belive that three (3) 'atoms' of this were made, although I can't find a reference on that. Problem is that in order to make it, you require to pass two streams, one matter, one anti matter past each other. The yield from this is exceptionally low.
Still, problem of containment, and ignition, has been solved. With this, in a system, it would be feasable to have a 1 mg antimatter bomb the size of your computer. If memory serves me correct, that's enough to destroy Earth.
Interestingly enough, there is a solid point in this satire...
We do not understand the effect that the massive use of antiseptics is having. There is some evidence that they are partly responsable for the current rise in immune system disorders - things like Asthma, Eczema, Chrones disease and similar.
Whilst no-one doubts the benefit that the use of antiseptics have in surgery, the current mania for overuse in the home may cause as many problems as it solves.
And that's 100 years after they were first used, that questions are being asked.
The time for discussion is when nothing can be done, rather than having the law makers rush through inefficent and patchy legislation.
Although I don't think that Katz's article helped much beyond FUD.
...thank goodness they didn't play Dungeons and Dragons, or we'd have to sit through that old song and dance again...
Unfortunatly, that assumes that the media is not trying for the maximum sensationalisation of the incident, but rather for accurate reporting. In the real world that is the press, the San Francisco Chronicle was the first (I think), to rehash all the 'Role playing games are evil' junk, and was closely followed by the Times (in the UK). All written in a manner to imply blame on RPG's, but never actually saying any facts, just good old FUD.
The upshot of this is that a number of roleplaying game societies have been put on hold, by 'concerned citizens'. It's nice to live in a free country. Maybe one day I will.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if it is a socket 7 (and I don't know), you wouldn't just be able to pop it into a 200 MHz mother board, and expect it to work properly.
Firstly, the motherboard contains a number of chips that have to work at approximatly the same speed as the processor, eg DRAM contoller, PCI bus etc.
Also, last time I checked, the clock multiplication was done by the motherboard, not the processor (else how do you overclock)?
And the real kicker is the voltage. Faster chips use a lower voltage.
For the most part, it is fairly normal to upgrade the processor and motherboard at the same time. Unless you upgrade processors _really_ often (say, 3-6 months).
Same, but that's just the way it is.
The obscene Regulation of Investagoatory Powers bill, all about electronic freedom (And poetically shortened to RIP) allows a person to use an electronic signature to sign legal documents.
This is not law yet.
Therefore, in the UK, an electronic signature is not legally binding.
Besides, RIP states that the electronic signature is a cryptographic device.
In short, Napsters thingy is bogus, for all UK citizens.
Um, maybe it's just me, but it strikes me that that's a very poor solution. Rather than stopping untrusted scripts from being launched, without making it bloody clear that they could be malicuous (all it would take is a simple dialog box, defaulting to not bothering), you'd preffer a system that scans for virus signatures?
But that's a totally re-active solution. That is, there is nothing that you can do to prevent the damage - only stop it spreading.
Fixing the email client to have a clue might actually _stop_ the problem, rather than shoring up a holed dyke.
A hard drives heads are shaped so that they 'fly' over the surface. In other words, in order to actually have a relieable spacing of the heads above the platter, they utilise the Bernoulli efect (you know, same thing that keeps aircraft up). There is something of the order of 100 air 'molecules' between the head and the platter. It's spaced that much to allow for variation in head head (if you knocked it and caused a head crash, you wouldn't be impressed, would you?).
I do recall that someone (Western Digital?) a few years ago (about 7 or so) reported on filling a harddrive with a liquid, that is more viscous than air. This allowed the head to platter spacing to be reduced, as the more visquius liquid is a better shock adsorber. I belive they had a working prototype at one molecule above the surface. Advantage of this is that it allow more precise control of applied force, and better spatial location of magnetic domainms (IOW - higher data density)
In a word, yes. See the designers website commentry here.
For other questions, see the informal FAQ at
yopy.org.
The person who wrote the program was not a professional programmer. Her was a professional judge. I quote from the New Scientist's piece on it:
A keen programmer, Feu Rosa wrote the E-Judge program in the Visual Basic language. It presents the judge with multiple choice questions, such as "Did the driver stop at the red light?" or "Had the driver been drinking alcohol above the acceptable limit of the law?"
So, why didn't this amateur programmer use prolog? Because prolog is a crap language. Unless you are an expert system specialist. The VB program looks nice, and does no logic more than a traffic light control program.
In short, despite the fact the media report it as an AI program, it's not. That's why an AI language wasn't used. This is plainly evident from the New Scientist web page.
[Aside: Why do people trust the BBC's Sci-Tech web pages? They are, without exception, the worst reporting mechanism for science and technology news. The BBC generally is poor in that area, and litters articles with inaccuracies and bad reporting]
..in this instance.
When you go to a shop and take a CD copy of an dalbum, and give them money, is that a commercial transaction? (Answear: Yes)
If you paid them 'in kind' (i.e. with goods or services, instead of money) would that still be a commercial transaction? (Answear: Yes)
So why is paying for one MP3 file with another not a comercial transaction?
[Aside: Yes, a major difference with this may be that the person from whom you obtain your MP3 does not nessiscarily download one from your collection. However, your are _offering_ your MP3 collection in return for the MP3 (ie giveing a service), which probably counts]
I'm not a liscened lawyer in the USA. Nor, in fact in any other country. Any person taking what I say as legal advice needs to send me lots of money.
Ah, but to go along with the draconian laws that the RIP bill is, there is a little diamond in the rough.
The Data protection act. Basically, if any UK organisation (not just a company, any org) wants to store personal data about me on a computer, they have to get my signature on a piece of paper, giving them permision. In other words, such a scheme in the UK must be opt-in.
Additionally, they _have_ to let you view _all_ the data you hold on them, for a nominal fee.
(Oh, IANAL, that's just how I precieve it to work, as someone whose tangled briefly with it)
So, how does this releate? Well, look at the they way they let you see your personal data:
Any subscriber on The Predictive Network has the right to view their Digital Silhouette free of charge twice during the calendar year. Subscribers will be charged $50.00 per request thereafter.
Note the two free views. This is so that they can link the Silhouette with a person (or maybe I'm just a bit cynical). After that, you pay through the nose. In UK, assuming it's sent via email, I believe the maximum they can charge is one pound (Those values are typical from companies that snail mail the data to you. They may not be able to charge even that much). Thier planned method of limiting acess to the data they hold is illegal in the UK.
Other nice touches - it would have to be (technically) opt-in. Admitingly, they can be rather sneaky about it - it's now common to have a small box on any form you send to a company, and if you _don't_ tick the box, they have your permision to sell your data. However, it's trivial to tick the box and stop them.
Data protection act - As far as I have seen, it's good for individuals, and bad for companies.
Oh, and there are a number of prosecutions each year under this act - in other words, this has teeth.
--
Your outlined solution would result in the spam they send you being totally pointless.
They still collect the data.
They still sell that to companies (I presume, else they have no revenue generation).
Your solution will only work if virtually everyone generated noise. That would mean that the return from the companies that purchase the data would drop, they stop buying it, and then they have no revenue - they stop.
However, the same logic can be applied to banner ads. If there was a program available to to block banner adds, and people used it, then the advertisers would get no return, and thus they stop paying for useless ads.
There is such a program - Junkbuster, or relatives. They've been around a while. But banner ads still exist. So, not enough people use it.
If not enough people will use something that gets rid of an eyesore, why would they suddenly use a program to defeat something they can't see?
In summary, a noise generating program will only give you a more diverse range of spam. It doesn't solve the problem.
--
... the man says that there are Linux DVD players "on the market".
However you want to read that, to me that suggests that I can get one now. Not some time soon (And that's 'soon' in software release dates, which we all know never slip).
In other words, I reckon he was talking flying monkeys.
--
I thought of this too. However, there is a logical solution - Internet broadcasters pay only for the land area not convered by radio transmisions.
Yeah, this does lead into some other, odd, conclusions, but it's the only logical solution.
That's not to say it's fair.
In the UK, each (electromagnetic) radio station pays a fee to a central board for each piece of music they broadcast, and that depends on the size of the station. (IIRC for a national station, it's ten pounds). I belive that a similar fee is applied for an internet radio station, although the only internet radion operator I know of in the UK is the BBC, which is slightly different anyway.
--
A POSSIBILITY OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCE SHIELDING BY BULK YBA2CU3O7-X SUPERCONDUCTOR
PODKLETNOV_E, NIEMINEN_R
PHYSICA C, 1992, Vol.203, No.3-4, pp.441-444
Shielding properties of single-phase dense bulk superconducting ceramics of YBa2Cu3O7-x against the gravitational force were studied at temperatures below 77 K. A small non-conducting and non-magnetic sample weighing 5.48 g was placed over a levitating superconducting disk and the loss of weight was measured with high precision using an electro-optical balance system. The sample was found to lose from 0.05 to 0.3% of its weight, depending on the rotation speed of the superconducting disk. Partial loss of weight might be the result of a certain state of energy which exists inside the crystal structure of the superconductor at low temperatures. The unusual state of energy might have changed a regular interaction between electromagnetic, nuclear and gravitational forces inside a solid body and is responsible for the gravity shielding effect.
Note that that the loss of weight is _not_ in the superconductor it'self, but in another piece of material held above it. Further, this sample is specifically stated to be non-conductin and non magnetic. In other words, all the theories I've just read on here about magnetic effects have been excluded (Unless you want to claim that the diamagnetic effect lead to this 0.3% reduction in weight. If so, he shouldn't bother with the gravity shielding, cos that's one helluva magnet).
Also note that it is explicetly _not_ antigravity. It is a gravity shilding effect. This, whilst I don't believe that it is predicted by relaticity theroy (that's not my field), does not lead to the contradictions inherent in true anti-gravity.
--
After all, if he'd wanted to remove anonymity, he'd have built it in when he invented the damn thing..
--
Firstly, the notion of bearing your soul and your abuse to a group of strangers is ridiculous in itself. These folks need to deal with professional counsellors who can really help them, not a bunch of wannabe psychologists hanging out in newsgroups giving out bad advice.
You two points here: one, that they should be looking for support from anyone other than a professional, and two, because of one, they don't need anonymity.
From your post I belive that you have never had to stand up in front of someone, and admit you need emotional help. Whilst I think that everyone would agree that it _shouldn't_ be difficult, that doesn't mean it isn't.
Whilst not suffering from abuse (thankfully), I have experience of this, due to disfigurment by a medical condition. You cannot understand the relief that goes with talking to others in a similar position (purely a "you are not alone anymore" feeling) until you've been in such a situation.
'Victim support' is not profesional councelling, and does not try to be. It is often a nessecary first step before professional counciling can be saught.
Anonymity makes the whole process easier, when you know you can talk frankly and openly, without fear of ridicule or embarasment.
Like physical scars, emotional scars never heal, they just hurt less with time. Most people preffer to keep thier scars hidden.
--
in the Uk. Basically, it's a user modification to the device - the worst that that can do is negate any explicit or implicit warrenty.
Remeber MPAA's objection to DeCSS is the EULA, which doesn;t exist with hardware.
--
for some people to order data or keys to be given up.
Now, whilst I'm not a lawyer, here's my thoughts on reading the bill.
Part 1 sets up a register of 'approved providers of cryptographic support services'.
Interestingly, you don't need to be providing any service in the UK, to apply for approval. (Para 2.1 b ).
Part 2 allows the use of a digital signature, as a legal indicator if identity.
Para 7.2 basically says that if it looks like the signature is ment to be attatched, then it is. Given that you can use either a chunck of random data, or a procedure applied to the signature, (Para 7.3), and it must be certified as per para 7.1, it looks to me like you could, if you can packet sniff and spoof, read a message, then send a second message, claiming to be a signature of the sender, to the recipient. The reciptent would then be able to certify that signature, and, ta-da, you can sign that person up to what you want, with legal force. Fair? I have seen no point in the bill that states that the sender must certify his signature.
Part 3 is ther meaty bit - this is the part that allows your data / keys to be taken.
There are a number of mechanisms for getting authorisation to do such - two by my counting, as detailed in Schedule 1.
1 - Secretary of State, or a Judge, JP, Sheriff[0] etc issues a warrent.
2 - With written permission, but no actual warrent from same as above, or something along those lines[1].
These methods have various sub conditions, depending if they have your data, or if they think you are about to get encrypted data (which is enough for them to get a warrent to force you to decrypt it).
There's a particularly worrying batch of legalese in schedlue 1, that suggests that they don't always need a warrent, and can act on the say so of a senior polic officer, customs and excise commisioner, or, worryingly, a senior member of the military. The latter bit worries me a lot.
Hopefully my reading of it is wrong, anyone want to confirm?
[0] A Sheriff is a local magistrate, not a law enforecment offical (in Scotland)
[1] A particulary contorted batach of legalese in Schedule 1.2 - 1.4
--
Antimatter containment is 100% feasable.
What you do is take your anti-proton, and then make a proton orbit it, in a manner exactly analogus to a conventional atom. They don't touch, so they do not anhilate. The anti-proton orbits at a radius much closer than that of the electron in hydrogen (due to it's much greater mass. In fact it's mor accurate to say that they orbit around a common centre of mass).
This configuration is stable, until you excite the system, to seperate the two constituents, and allow them to recombine. This is exactly analogus to the photoelectric effect, and can be done by application of electromagnetic radiation (I belive that it's somewhere in the ultraviolet range, all though it might need to be x-rays).
The system is pretty stable, as things go. Until made in bulk, it's impossable to say how stable, but predictions show that the rate of spontaneus decay is low enough to be a viable system of antimatter containment.
This as the nice advantage that all you need to do to liberate energy is irradiate it, and it presents no more containment problems than, say, tritium.
I belive that three (3) 'atoms' of this were made, although I can't find a reference on that. Problem is that in order to make it, you require to pass two streams, one matter, one anti matter past each other. The yield from this is exceptionally low.
Still, problem of containment, and ignition, has been solved. With this, in a system, it would be feasable to have a 1 mg antimatter bomb the size of your computer. If memory serves me correct, that's enough to destroy Earth.
Sweet dreams...
--
Interestingly enough, there is a solid point in this satire...
We do not understand the effect that the massive use of antiseptics is having. There is some evidence that they are partly responsable for the current rise in immune system disorders - things like Asthma, Eczema, Chrones disease and similar.
Whilst no-one doubts the benefit that the use of antiseptics have in surgery, the current mania for overuse in the home may cause as many problems as it solves.
And that's 100 years after they were first used, that questions are being asked.
The time for discussion is when nothing can be done, rather than having the law makers rush through inefficent and patchy legislation.
Although I don't think that Katz's article helped much beyond FUD.
(A Lifelong sufferer of Eczema)
Unfortunatly, that assumes that the media is not trying for the maximum sensationalisation of the incident, but rather for accurate reporting. In the real world that is the press, the San Francisco Chronicle was the first (I think), to rehash all the 'Role playing games are evil' junk, and was closely followed by the Times (in the UK). All written in a manner to imply blame on RPG's, but never actually saying any facts, just good old FUD.
The upshot of this is that a number of roleplaying game societies have been put on hold, by 'concerned citizens'. It's nice to live in a free country. Maybe one day I will.
DarkMan sdjp@st-andrews.ac.uk#telnet www.algore.com 80
[snip]
Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
[snip]
Hmm, open source.