True, I discovered all the music CD's I bought this year through internet radio. Before I started listening to internet radio, I didn't buy any CD's anymore because I didn't hear any music I liked. So personally, the internet has done just the opposite.
Chances are that, when you're in the "I just wrote a linux filesystem"-league, Windows is quite irrelevant to you. Why spend time on porting to windows if
You won't use it,
You don't have enough knowledge of windows internals,
You don't have the development tools (and you surely don't want want to spend your money buying VC++),
MS isn't interested at all in third-party filesystems (they like playing monopoly as long as they're winning).
It has nothing to do with childishness, it's actually quite understandable.
My friends and I would have "LAN" parties, which, of course, as there was no networking, involved us dragging our computers over to our friends house and playing games NEXT to each other, I did a 'LAN' party in 1989 with two amiga's and a null-modem cable. We played Populous II all weekend. Now there's an evil game in multiplayer mode...
Well, let's do the math: 1kg of uranium spread out over manhattan would result in a density of 16 microgram/m^2. That is, if it is spread in a uniform way. The natural occurence of uranium is 300 microgram to 11.7 milligram per kg. So I doubt it will be that harmful.
Now, how would you make a bomb that would spreads the material effectively? Uranium is a metal, so just putting a block of uranium in a conventional bomb wont work; you'll have to powder it - a lot. preferably less than 16 microgram per particle. And then mix it with the explosives and let it go of. How much of this material would leave a 100-200m radius of the blast you think? Remember, uranium is very heavy. How long would it take some people with a vacuum cleaner to clear up the mess?
That's why I think it's very doubtful it would be effective.
I'm not downplaying terrorism, I'm downplaying the effectiveness of dirty bombs. Your only argument is that the *fear* is more important than the effect, but if that is true, why aren't the politicians trying to eliminate the *only* effect of a dirty bomb? No, instead of explaining that it doesn't work, they make use of that fear to implement their own political agenda. Now that's grotesk.
BTW, it's still illegal to bring fluids on a plane, despite it being proven that it's chemically impossible to mix them on a plane without any tools and get a strong enough explosion (e.g. you need lots of ice to prevent it from exploding prematurely). So now it is illegal to do something because of some fear propaganda. Great!
And the list goes on. Lies are built upon lies and these people swallow it all. It is disgusting. This has *nothing* to do with terrorism. It's domestic neocons trying to use fear to push their own agenda. Hmm.. I guess you could call it terrorism after all then, there just aren't any muslims involved. Does it still count if they are white?
And the dirty bomb scenario is a complete 100% propaganda fabrication. There is no way to disperse enough nuclear material to make it effective. It could happen, but it won't kill anyone from the radiation. It's pure neocon FUD.
Nothing (wires) needs to get in or out, whereas with a hard drive, unless you are powering by induction and have a wireless (radio or optical) way of transmitting data, you need wires to penetrate the envelope. *That* is where failure occurs. I think that should read "*That* is where failure occurs on badly engineered products.". I'm sure there are waterproof ways to solve this reliably.
Most(*) fluids conduct heat well. If you use a non-conducting liquid, why not get rid of the casing and immerse the electronics in the liquid, using it as coolant.
*: I'd say all, but I'm sure that if I say that, nature will prove me wrong once more.
Are you implying that GCC will use MMX instructions out of its own? I once ran into the "vector" keyword, like in vector int bla[3]; so I think you have to write code specifically for MMX.
And oxygen. Everyone is speculating about possible water on the moon, but if they can find ice on mercury using radar, why haven't they found any on the moon? Maybe there is a little, but unless you find concentrated ice deposits, you'll have to set up quite a mining operation.
If you can extract oxygen, I think it would make more sense to mine that than to go hunting water that very possibly isn't there. Hydrogen is much lighter, so cheaper, to haul into space. Oxygen makes the bulk of the weight.
Transporting the hydrogen in the form of e.g. liquid propane might make sense. Both hydrogen and carbon are scarse elements on the moon, and propane is much easier to handle than cryogenic hydrogen (plus, hydrogen molecules seep throuh metal walls because they are so small).
Bah! Since when is showering a necessity? My thought exactly. Since I stopped wasting time showering, not only I can play RTCW ET 20 minutes more each day, but I always have room on the bus too. And playing on my PSP is so much more comfortable while sitting.
I just spent the whole evening writing a morse translator:). It works with my keyboard led, tomorrow I'll compile it on an ARM.
The idea has been nagging me for ages:).
BTW, I've never heard of brew before, so I looked it up. Is it any good? My gut feeling tells me it's more marketing than software, but that's just by looking at the website.. I could be completely wrong.
I write embedded software for industrial machines. It is fascinating. When you run your software and see a machine come to life, it's thrilling. Also, I get to see the insides of lots of machinery, it's like hacking but with a direct line to the company's engineers:).
It's sometimes also stressful, if you made a bug it can cause the machine to break. I once was bug-hunting with half a factory looking over my shoulders because production had halted. You have to be able to stay calm then.
Changing the pitch etc. shouldn't be a problem, so if you integrate voice in the game and make the filter customizable together with the rest of your character, that would be really cool. Problem solved.
I just saw the first part. Very interesting indeed, and it shows many of the same neo-cons that were interviewed in "Why we fight". For example, William Kristol, whom I never had heard from before, but after hearing what that guy says, I'm convinced he's a sociopath (The same goes for Rumsfeld, but the whole world knows that already;-) ).
I guess it all depends on the material. If it becomes fragmented, you could get a spectacular "exit wound". Or maybe it would vaporize, maybe with part of the ship.
But unless you're a scientific expert, probably we're both just tapping our imagination to conclude what would happen. I doubt that even scientists could give you the answer. Maybe it could be simulated on computers, but I would be very impressed if we have the machinery to conduct that experiment in a lab.
"Why we fight", a documentary by the BBC and ARTE, is much better in that respect. If you really want to get depressed, I suggest you see the following movies:
1) Why we fight, 2) Hacking democracy, 3) An inconvenient thruth (just for Al Gore's references to when he was running for president - less important in this context but still intruiging), 4) Shut up and sing (to show how the public got carried away with the war fever - it includes the historic lies of Rumsfeld saying there is no doubt that Sadam has WMD).
Watch in that order for maximum effect. After that, you'll never think of the USA as "land of the free" again, but more like "land of the morons".
If you take the example from the article, 20 lightyears away, a round trip would take 40 years (easy to calculate, as radio waves travel at the speed of light;-) ). "Centuries" seems a bit overdramatic, but it surely would turn an interstellar stock exchange into sort of a russian roulette game.
As for finding earth-like planets, I think we will have to wait for the darwin mission to really start hunting them.
I just had to calculate that. According to wikipedia, 1 kg of TNT equals 4.184×10E6 J.
So, taking a hit from a 1 gram particle, I entered (30,000 km/sec)^2 * (1 gram / 2) / ((4.184×10E6 J)/kg) in google, and got a result of ~10 tonnes of TNT. Hmmm... you'd better have good insurance.
It is mere physics obstacles that need to be overcome, that includes dimensional hopping or more likely controlled black-holes or worm holes, to colonize the galaxy.
[...]
To even say it is impossible or requires a 'magic wand' is absurd. One could argue that "dimensional hopping" or "worm holes" fall under the magical wand category. Of course, if you acquire such technology the story changes completely, but the things you describe are highly speculative, and even if we could create a wormhole, riding it and getting out in one piece is still not guaranteed.
Also, if you can control a black hole, there are much cooler things you can do, such as time travel. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, as I cannot foresee the future without a time machine, but it does show you what we're talking about here. Yet, time travel causes so many paradoxes that I personally believe it's impossible. I know experiments are being set up to test retrocausality , but even the scientists who are running the experiment think it won't work. If it would work, the lottery will be out of business in no time. I'm sure much will be learned from the experiment, but more likely it will be knowledge about why it doesn't work.
The 2 x 10E18 Joules for an acceleration and deceleration of two tonnes to c/10 is correct - enter 1000kg * (c/10)^2 (E=m/2*v^2) in google and you get the same number, so it would require our knowledge of physics to be wrong to be able to get around that. Highly improbable (again, IMO). Just assume that there is no way around that number, and you would have to completely annihilate 10kg of mass, and turn the resulting energy completely in kinetic energy to get there. The only even remotely probable way to achieve that is to create and contain 5 kg of antimatter. Antimatter can be created, it would cost a lot and would probably require a machine the size of a small planet, but at least it won't require a complete new dimension or a time-travel enabling wormhole to get there.
Slashdot Mirror
True, I discovered all the music CD's I bought this year through internet radio. Before I started listening to internet radio, I didn't buy any CD's anymore because I didn't hear any music I liked. So personally, the internet has done just the opposite.
I haven't bought any Elton John though.
Stop it! I swear, if I see one more of these redundant pleonasms on my LCD display, I'm going to explode!
It has nothing to do with childishness, it's actually quite understandable.
Short answer: the whole concept. Long answer: cfr supra. (my answer to the previous reply).
Well, let's do the math: 1kg of uranium spread out over manhattan would result in a density of 16 microgram/m^2. That is, if it is spread in a uniform way. The natural occurence of uranium is 300 microgram to 11.7 milligram per kg. So I doubt it will be that harmful.
Now, how would you make a bomb that would spreads the material effectively? Uranium is a metal, so just putting a block of uranium in a conventional bomb wont work; you'll have to powder it - a lot. preferably less than 16 microgram per particle. And then mix it with the explosives and let it go of. How much of this material would leave a 100-200m radius of the blast you think? Remember, uranium is very heavy. How long would it take some people with a vacuum cleaner to clear up the mess?
That's why I think it's very doubtful it would be effective.
I'm not downplaying terrorism, I'm downplaying the effectiveness of dirty bombs. Your only argument is that the *fear* is more important than the effect, but if that is true, why aren't the politicians trying to eliminate the *only* effect of a dirty bomb? No, instead of explaining that it doesn't work, they make use of that fear to implement their own political agenda. Now that's grotesk.
BTW, it's still illegal to bring fluids on a plane, despite it being proven that it's chemically impossible to mix them on a plane without any tools and get a strong enough explosion (e.g. you need lots of ice to prevent it from exploding prematurely). So now it is illegal to do something because of some fear propaganda. Great!
And the list goes on. Lies are built upon lies and these people swallow it all. It is disgusting. This has *nothing* to do with terrorism. It's domestic neocons trying to use fear to push their own agenda. Hmm.. I guess you could call it terrorism after all then, there just aren't any muslims involved. Does it still count if they are white?
And the dirty bomb scenario is a complete 100% propaganda fabrication. There is no way to disperse enough nuclear material to make it effective. It could happen, but it won't kill anyone from the radiation. It's pure neocon FUD.
I just fear that your solution opens the door to denial of service attacks.
In my opinion the problem needs to be adressed at the e-mail providers themselves. harden the CAPTCHA's , and let software detect outgoing spam.
Most(*) fluids conduct heat well. If you use a non-conducting liquid, why not get rid of the casing and immerse the electronics in the liquid, using it as coolant.
*: I'd say all, but I'm sure that if I say that, nature will prove me wrong once more.
Are you implying that GCC will use MMX instructions out of its own? I once ran into the "vector" keyword, like in vector int bla[3]; so I think you have to write code specifically for MMX.
Disclaimer: I could be totally wrong.
And oxygen. Everyone is speculating about possible water on the moon, but if they can find ice on mercury using radar, why haven't they found any on the moon? Maybe there is a little, but unless you find concentrated ice deposits, you'll have to set up quite a mining operation.
If you can extract oxygen, I think it would make more sense to mine that than to go hunting water that very possibly isn't there. Hydrogen is much lighter, so cheaper, to haul into space. Oxygen makes the bulk of the weight.
Transporting the hydrogen in the form of e.g. liquid propane might make sense. Both hydrogen and carbon are scarse elements on the moon, and propane is much easier to handle than cryogenic hydrogen (plus, hydrogen molecules seep throuh metal walls because they are so small).
Those scientists are nuts.
I just spent the whole evening writing a morse translator :). It works with my keyboard led, tomorrow I'll compile it on an ARM.
:).
The idea has been nagging me for ages
BTW, I've never heard of brew before, so I looked it up. Is it any good? My gut feeling tells me it's more marketing than software, but that's just by looking at the website.. I could be completely wrong.
I write embedded software for industrial machines. It is fascinating. When you run your software and see a machine come to life, it's thrilling. Also, I get to see the insides of lots of machinery, it's like hacking but with a direct line to the company's engineers :).
:).
It's sometimes also stressful, if you made a bug it can cause the machine to break. I once was bug-hunting with half a factory looking over my shoulders because production had halted. You have to be able to stay calm then.
PS: to answer your question: learn morse
Changing the pitch etc. shouldn't be a problem, so if you integrate voice in the game and make the filter customizable together with the rest of your character, that would be really cool. Problem solved.
I just saw the first part. Very interesting indeed, and it shows many of the same neo-cons that were interviewed in "Why we fight". For example, William Kristol, whom I never had heard from before, but after hearing what that guy says, I'm convinced he's a sociopath (The same goes for Rumsfeld, but the whole world knows that already ;-) ).
I guess it all depends on the material. If it becomes fragmented, you could get a spectacular "exit wound". Or maybe it would vaporize, maybe with part of the ship.
But unless you're a scientific expert, probably we're both just tapping our imagination to conclude what would happen. I doubt that even scientists could give you the answer. Maybe it could be simulated on computers, but I would be very impressed if we have the machinery to conduct that experiment in a lab.
"Why we fight", a documentary by the BBC and ARTE, is much better in that respect. If you really want to get depressed, I suggest you see the following movies:
1) Why we fight,
2) Hacking democracy,
3) An inconvenient thruth (just for Al Gore's references to when he was running for president - less important in this context but still intruiging),
4) Shut up and sing (to show how the public got carried away with the war fever - it includes the historic lies of Rumsfeld saying there is no doubt that Sadam has WMD).
Watch in that order for maximum effect. After that, you'll never think of the USA as "land of the free" again, but more like "land of the morons".
If you take the example from the article, 20 lightyears away, a round trip would take 40 years (easy to calculate, as radio waves travel at the speed of light ;-) ). "Centuries" seems a bit overdramatic, but it surely would turn an interstellar stock exchange into sort of a russian roulette game.
As for finding earth-like planets, I think we will have to wait for the darwin mission to really start hunting them.
I just had to calculate that. According to wikipedia, 1 kg of TNT equals 4.184×10E6 J.
So, taking a hit from a 1 gram particle, I entered (30,000 km/sec)^2 * (1 gram / 2) / ((4.184×10E6 J)/kg) in google, and got a result of ~10 tonnes of TNT. Hmmm... you'd better have good insurance.
(Sorry, I got it wrong, that's 10kg for accelerating and another 10kg to decelerate.)
[...]
To even say it is impossible or requires a 'magic wand' is absurd. One could argue that "dimensional hopping" or "worm holes" fall under the magical wand category. Of course, if you acquire such technology the story changes completely, but the things you describe are highly speculative, and even if we could create a wormhole, riding it and getting out in one piece is still not guaranteed.
Also, if you can control a black hole, there are much cooler things you can do, such as time travel. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, as I cannot foresee the future without a time machine, but it does show you what we're talking about here. Yet, time travel causes so many paradoxes that I personally believe it's impossible. I know experiments are being set up to test retrocausality , but even the scientists who are running the experiment think it won't work. If it would work, the lottery will be out of business in no time. I'm sure much will be learned from the experiment, but more likely it will be knowledge about why it doesn't work.
The 2 x 10E18 Joules for an acceleration and deceleration of two tonnes to c/10 is correct - enter 1000kg * (c/10)^2 (E=m/2*v^2) in google and you get the same number, so it would require our knowledge of physics to be wrong to be able to get around that. Highly improbable (again, IMO). Just assume that there is no way around that number, and you would have to completely annihilate 10kg of mass, and turn the resulting energy completely in kinetic energy to get there. The only even remotely probable way to achieve that is to create and contain 5 kg of antimatter. Antimatter can be created, it would cost a lot and would probably require a machine the size of a small planet, but at least it won't require a complete new dimension or a time-travel enabling wormhole to get there.