The multiverses in which no Higgs are observed simply because no approporiate reactions occur at exactly the right time and place to be recorded will certainly vastly outnumber the ones where the LHC fails via some complicated mechanical breakdown.
When it could simply give a small nudge to any proton in the collider beam that would otherwise have participated in a Higgs-producing collision? Or cause an alpha particle to flip a bit somewhere in the LHC electronics such that the Higgs event goes unnoticed? Or one of any number of other ways to render the Higgs unobserved with minimal effort? After all, there is a small but significant probability of the Higgs existing at the expected energy level and yet being missed by the planned experiment through sheer chance. Why would the universe simply arrange for that to happen rather than making massive interventions?
Such restraining orders may or may not be justified or reasonable, but she clearly violated the order. I don't see that the fact that a "Facebook poke" was involved is relevant.
> How is it a hole when people who don't redistribute code aren't required to > redistribute the source that created it?
The argument is that allowing people to use the software by accessing servers over the Web while denying them access to the source is functionally equivalent to selling them binaries while denying them source. I think it is functionally equivalent to allowing them to use the software on your timesharing system via Telnet (something the FSF never objected to) but it is a point on which people can honestly disagree.
> I'm guessing they rely on the license terms to determine whether or not it's > legitimate for me to resell my Warcraft 3 CDs or Windows XP Key. I'm guessing > that Blizzard & Microsoft would be the ones informing them that's not > legitimate.
If you purchased the CDs they are your property. If they are your property and you sell them the buyer is the legitimate owner of copies of the software and therefor may legally use it under US copyright law. If at the time you purchased the CDs you also entered into a contract in which you promised not to sell the CDs Blizzard has grounds to sue you for breach of contract under state law but they have no claim against the guy who bought them from you as he was not a party to the contract.
Contrary to popular opinion it is entirely legal to own and use software in the US without ever having entered into a license agreement with the copyright owner. One merely needs to be the legitimate owner of a copy.
They go farther. If you buy a used computer with Windows already installed and don't pay anything to Microsoft they classify you as a pirate even though that is entirely legal under US copyright law.
>...the ideal orbit to launch into is changing all the time.
There is no one ideal orbit for everything.
>...and its impossible to use thrusters to change orbit.
The fixed azimuth is a serious limitation. Large plane changes consume large amounts of fuel. For example when a shuttle goes to Hubble it cannot carry enough fuel to also go to the station because of the orbital plane change that would be required. It isn't a matter of getting up there and then zipping around like something on a TV show.
> If it were completely launched into orbit from a low altitude gun, the > velocity would have to be much greater than orbital to account for the > horrendous air resistance -- simply not possible.
Mainly because the muzzle velocity of a gun is limited by the speed of sound in the propellant gas.
The one I read about in the seventies had optics in it but there were no specifics about what it homed in on. Later I heard about one that homed on a laser target designator but I don't know if it was the same device. I would expect them to be using GPS now.
What is interesting is that the electronics were not potted. They simply used thick boards supported all the way around the edge and made sure all the parts were installed in contact with the board (i.e., not standing up on their leads). This was the seventies so the parts were DIPs, discrete transistors, quarter watt resistors, etc. Modern surface mount parts should be more robust yet.
I see no major problem shipping most stuff that the station needs via this gun. Some equipment might need to be more robust than usual, but so what? The reason for making such things as light as possible is to save on launch costs. If this thing is 1/10 the cost of conventional rockets you can double the weight of your experiment to make it tough enough to survive the gun and still come out way ahead.
> What I always wondered was if the aircraft carrier had not come along, would > we have seen some terminal guidance systems for naval and land artillery?
We did. The US Army had artillery shells with terminal guidance in the 1970s.
Slashdot Mirror
There isn't any "wrong". It's just entertainment.
Experience over the last 62 years strongly supports the theory that the universe couldn't care less what I think.
The multiverses in which no Higgs are observed simply because no approporiate reactions occur at exactly the right time and place to be recorded will certainly vastly outnumber the ones where the LHC fails via some complicated mechanical breakdown.
When it could simply give a small nudge to any proton in the collider beam that would otherwise have participated in a Higgs-producing collision? Or cause an alpha particle to flip a bit somewhere in the LHC electronics such that the Higgs event goes unnoticed? Or one of any number of other ways to render the Higgs unobserved with minimal effort? After all, there is a small but significant probability of the Higgs existing at the expected energy level and yet being missed by the planned experiment through sheer chance. Why would the universe simply arrange for that to happen rather than making massive interventions?
Such restraining orders may or may not be justified or reasonable, but she clearly violated the order. I don't see that the fact that a "Facebook poke" was involved is relevant.
No. I actually enjoy my own work quite a lot. However, I have enough contact with ordinary people to know that most of them don't.
I see no reason to meet them with anything other than a yawn. What does he propose to do, get a Federal court order requiring affirmative action?
And yet people evidently stored important data on it.
Idiots.
> How is it a hole when people who don't redistribute code aren't required to
> redistribute the source that created it?
The argument is that allowing people to use the software by accessing servers over the Web while denying them access to the source is functionally equivalent to selling them binaries while denying them source. I think it is functionally equivalent to allowing them to use the software on your timesharing system via Telnet (something the FSF never objected to) but it is a point on which people can honestly disagree.
> I'm guessing they rely on the license terms to determine whether or not it's
> legitimate for me to resell my Warcraft 3 CDs or Windows XP Key. I'm guessing
> that Blizzard & Microsoft would be the ones informing them that's not
> legitimate.
If you purchased the CDs they are your property. If they are your property and you sell them the buyer is the legitimate owner of copies of the software and therefor may legally use it under US copyright law. If at the time you purchased the CDs you also entered into a contract in which you promised not to sell the CDs Blizzard has grounds to sue you for breach of contract under state law but they have no claim against the guy who bought them from you as he was not a party to the contract.
Contrary to popular opinion it is entirely legal to own and use software in the US without ever having entered into a license agreement with the copyright owner. One merely needs to be the legitimate owner of a copy.
They go farther. If you buy a used computer with Windows already installed and don't pay anything to Microsoft they classify you as a pirate even though that is entirely legal under US copyright law.
> When I'm using my computer, I don't want to spend time fiddling with the OS
> and desktop environment.
Neither do I. That's one of the reasons I use Linux. It just works.
Advertisements usually are.
Just define away your problems. ROFL.
> ...the ideal orbit to launch into is changing all the time.
There is no one ideal orbit for everything.
> ...and its impossible to use thrusters to change orbit.
The fixed azimuth is a serious limitation. Large plane changes consume large amounts of fuel. For example when a shuttle goes to Hubble it cannot carry enough fuel to also go to the station because of the orbital plane change that would be required. It isn't a matter of getting up there and then zipping around like something on a TV show.
> ...you know what you['re] talking about.
So it would appear.
Getting above the atmosphere is more important than getting farther away from the center of the Earth.
Isn't the cheating part of the game?
n/t
> If it were completely launched into orbit from a low altitude gun, the
> velocity would have to be much greater than orbital to account for the
> horrendous air resistance -- simply not possible.
Mainly because the muzzle velocity of a gun is limited by the speed of sound in the propellant gas.
> Wouldn't a rail acceleration ramp (railgun) be better suited for this
> purpose?
Artillery is well-established technology. No one has built a large railgun yet.
> With this thing you'll have difficulties keeping the stuff together you want
> to catapult up.
Read the discussions about artillery shells elsewhere in tht thread. It isn't that hard.
Naval guns already manage half that velocity with projectiles weighing tons.
Right, but the operating costs, while lower than those of conventional rockets, will be far from zero.
The one I read about in the seventies had optics in it but there were no specifics about what it homed in on. Later I heard about one that homed on a laser target designator but I don't know if it was the same device. I would expect them to be using GPS now.
What is interesting is that the electronics were not potted. They simply used thick boards supported all the way around the edge and made sure all the parts were installed in contact with the board (i.e., not standing up on their leads). This was the seventies so the parts were DIPs, discrete transistors, quarter watt resistors, etc. Modern surface mount parts should be more robust yet.
I see no major problem shipping most stuff that the station needs via this gun. Some equipment might need to be more robust than usual, but so what? The reason for making such things as light as possible is to save on launch costs. If this thing is 1/10 the cost of conventional rockets you can double the weight of your experiment to make it tough enough to survive the gun and still come out way ahead.
> What I always wondered was if the aircraft carrier had not come along, would
> we have seen some terminal guidance systems for naval and land artillery?
We did. The US Army had artillery shells with terminal guidance in the 1970s.
n/t