War might never be 'humane' but it certainly has the capacity to be a lot more humane then it is. The easiest way to make war safer, besides spewing some idealistic crap about 'lets never fight wars!'
Just playing devil's advocate, is it really a good thing for wars to be more humane? Look at the difference between Iraq and (Germany || Japan). Both Germany and Japan were absolutely fucking destroyed during WWII. As a result, the civilians quit. They threw up their hands and said, "screw this, we quit."
A few years later, Germany and Japan are two of the richest, most prosperous nations on Earth.
Contrast with Iraq. We try *really* hard not to hurt anyone, to avoid casualties, we apologize if we destroy a building. Result: civilians kind of shrug and do their best to live their lives and avoid the fighting. A group of foreign insurgents can move into a town and the civilians will say, "eh, they're not here to kill me so I don't care - it's none of my business."
At this rate, Iraq will continue to be a war zone indefinitely.
So all I'm saying, again as the devil's advocate - what if the people of Iraq had to suffer as much as the people of Germany or Japan suffered? Maybe they would say, "screw this - you foreign insurgents get the fuck out - we want the Americans to rebuild."
Re: How can MS be bound by GPL3 if they avoided using GPL3ed code after June 29? Yes, you can. "GPLv2, or later"
You are (intentionally?) misrepresenting what the GPL says. If Microsoft distributes GPLv2 then ***Microsoft*** gets to choose if they are bound by GPLv2 or GPLv3. Example, I downloaded Apache back when it was covered by GPL2. I can make changes to it and distribute those changes under v2 or v3 if I want to. The people who made Apache cannot force me to upgrade to v3. However, now that v3 is out, Apache will be distributed under v3. If I now download Apache, I'm stuck in version 3.
So the answer to grandparent's question, "can MS be bound by GPL3 if they avoided using GPL3ed code" is that yes, MS avoids being bound by it. Basically they would have to never update linux - or fork it - but what they have right now is GPL2 and GPL2 it shall stay.
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
a bunch of people who will work slavishly churning out a whole lot of crap they think is the most awesome thing ever.
Yep. I bet they've never had to do any maintenance at google. Everything they have is brand new (and admittedly, all of it is pretty awesome). The problem is that, take something like gmail for example. Gmail *has* to exist and be supported and updated and maintained for decades. What I'm getting at is, if you look at the big picture, you'll see that 90% of the time spent coding on gmail will necessarily be spent maintaining it, NOT writing it.
Now, I don't know what the code for gmail looks like. Maybe it's beautifully written, pretty-printed, commented, documented, poetry. Maybe. For the people who do that 90% of the work, I hope it's like that. What I have seen in my years in the software industry, is that people who can churn out lots of code and do lots of cool stuff, tend to write code that's very difficult to maintain.
So anyway yeah, like you said, college kids will work slavishly to churn something out. I just hope the code is readable because if not, google is going to pay for it in the long run.
but as other posters here have pointed out, some users' ISPs dork around with IPs. I have never understood why they do that? It doesn't increase throughput. I mean, I'm sure that AOL is multihomed, but switching a user from IP address x.y.z.100 to x.y.z.101 isn't moving them to a different segment, so I don't see how it helps anyone at all. I just don't get it.
I know you're joking but I'm a sucker so here goes: attitude means, "which direction is it pointed" They use big gyroscopes to keep the station oriented so that the solar panels can track the sun.
Maybe the new solar panels are a new input to the attitude program - "I am a new solar panel, I need to be pointed this way so that my 1 axis motor can track the sun"
and that also figures into moderation. Slashdot moderation isn't perfect, but it is useful. I wonder if it would be possible to overlay some kind of moderation system on top of NNTP. I know that there are moderated newsgroups, but it's not even close to the same thing as community moderation. usenet clients also alow killfiles, and that's useful, but still not as good as comminuty moderation.
Also, for moderation to work, you have to know who people are (meaning, accounts like oni and hacksoncode) so you'd have to overlay that onto NNTP too.
If it was just $2 to get a new key, then spammers would be able to pay $2 per daily load of spam.
no, it'd be $2 (or three or whatever) per 100 or so emails. Spammers send millions of emails a day, so this would make their operating costs amount to $20,000 or so per day. That would put them out of business.
Of course, any commercial entity would be immediately blocked
Why? How would this stop my bank from sending me an email without any kind of registration (the same system we use today)?
I know that the answer is, "because this allows the ISP to make more money" but if we look at it from the perspective of what's best for users, why exactly is pay-per-message the best solution?
Instead, how about I create an anonymous identity including a public key, and I register that anonymous identity with some kind of authority, who charges a very small fee - say two or three dollars. Now I can send all the emails I want. Each email is signed with my private key and email clients can query the authority to verify that I am me. When they see that I am registered, they leave the email in the inbox.
If I start sending spam, then the people who get my email will start telling the authority, "hey, you said this guy was registered but he is spamming me" and then after some threshold, the authority would revoke my registration. Any email without a registration might be spam, and would be filtered just as we filter email today. Any email with a revoked registration is *definitely* spam and goes straight to the trash. Any email with a valid registration is definitely not spam.
From the spammer's perspective, they would have to pay $2 to register, but then they could only send 100 or so spams before they are revoked. That would get very expensive very fast.
Spammers might try to DOS someone by telling the authority, "this guy is sending me spam," and hoping to have that guy's email address revoked, but the authority will only listen to "this guy is sending me spam" messages from registered users - plus, the authority requires 100 or so notifications before revoking. So the spammer would need to pay $200 to revoke someone's key. And after they pay that $200 to revoke your key? All you have to do is pay $2 to obtain a new key.
No, not *that* genesis (but I made you look, didn't I). The answer to the question, "why haven't we found life yet" really lies in the fact that what actually gets life going is still quite a mystery. As you know, scientists can simulate the conditions of early Earth and they can produce amino acids, but they can't produce DNA or simple cellular life.
My point is, we may still be missing something important and fundamental. That's what makes science so interesting. There is always something else to discover.
In Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, he makes reference to the work of another biologist whose name escapes me at the moment. But that guy's theory is that silicate crystals in soft clay are the necessary to get early life going. The theory goes like this: imagine a river with clay at the bottom. The clay forms microscopic crystals, which sometimes catch and constrain amino acids and other building blocks, like stuff getting stuck in the strainer in your sink.
As the crystals grow, they sometimes "empty the strainer" basically spitting out these now larger strands of amino acids. The strands and structures flow further down the river and inevitably get stuck in another crystal. There they grow larger and eventually get spit out. The process repeats all the way down the river.
At the mouth of the river, you've got billions of different pre-biotic experiments washing out into the sea. Just by chance, one of those experiments is able to reproduce itself. Life is unstoppable at that point.
So what I'm getting at is this: we keep finding *some* of the building blocks, but we aren't finding them arranged the correct way. A static sea (maybe even with hydrothermal vents) on Titan or Europa or Mars may be able to support current Earth life, but it may not be able to spark that all-important genesis event.
On the other hand, early Mars may have been perfect for this.
I have heard before that the outer skin is so thin that it actually wouldn't be strong enough to survive launch. But when they fill it with fuel, it gets colder and more britle and that makes it just strong enough.
So there is some truth to what you're saying. Well, I'll just keep my fingers crossed and hope the launch goes off ok.
It is possible that this may end up being a spectacular launch.
aw, don't say that! Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but foam comming off isn't so bad in and of itself, right? What happened with Columbia is that you had foam soaked in water (and frozen) so it was substantially more mass and therefore did more damage.
my first thought when I saw the redesign was that the programmers there don't really grok XHTML. They totally went about it the wrong way. You are supposed to think about data streams and then later use css to style it. But Fark's programmers clearly thought about presentaion only, and tried to make the data stream fit the layout they wanted. Along the way, they ended up with inline styles, extra useless divs, etc. The whole thing is just very awkward. They obviously aren't geeks.
And no, that isn't meant to flame them. IT's just my humble opinion. That site is so big now that they should be able to do better. All drew had to do was to ask his millions of users to help out. Hell, even slashdot had a css contest.
What's the matter, you don't have your mp3 player with you? Well then, you wouldn't be able to share with the zune either.
Re:People are too easy to distract
on
Is Email 'Bankrupt'?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Stop checking it so often
indeed. I have turned off the "you've got mail" icons and popups and such. I have a rule that will pop up a message if my boss emails me, but otherwise it's silent. When I get bored, I check my email.
Why was that faster ? Whast was different between those devices ?
Keep in mind that my experience with this was a long time ago, between 1998 and 2001. So, I'm seriously dated as far as the technology goes. I went from a management position to a programming position in 2002 and found that I no longer needed a PDA, so I haven't owned one sense.
I guess it was around 1999 that a couple of bigwigs got expensive windows PDAs and were kind of bragging about how cool they were. The two important differences that I noticed were:
1: With the windows PDAs you wrote directly on the screen. The Palms had a separate text entry area that was the same sort of thing as the mouse on a laptop. If you think about a laptop, you know that you will get much greater resolution on the mouse than you get if write on a touchscreen. So point one was that the Palm text entry area was of higher resolution and thus more accurate.
2: They were drawing actual letters. When they wrote an A, they actually wrote A. On the Palm, I would write something like ^ (if memory serves). So point two, they actually took longer to draw the characters.
3: Because their software had to figure out actual characters (drawn in lower resolution) it took longer to turn their writing into text. They were actually pausing between characters and watching the PDA figure out what they had drawn. The Palm software was using symbols that had been custom designed to be unambiguous, so even though the processor was undoubtedly slower, the Palm was turning my writing into text just as fast as I could enter it.
A couple of times, I challenged someone to a race and just blew them away. I don't really think that they cared too much though because they mostly used the PDAs to look up stuff, to read emails (synced emails, there was no wireless), and to manage their schedule. I could do all of that plus I could actually jot down notes on my Visor. That was impractical for them, but I'm not sure they really cared. Another cool thing about the visor was that you could plug in little modules. I had a vibrator module (giggity giggity) so that it would vibrate rather than use the audible alarm to remind me of a meeting. That was awesome, as I was often outside around equipment and couldn't hear the alarm.
At the time, there was much more software for the PalmOS too. Every morning, I would get a report of the current status of the soldiers in my company. I had a script that would convert that to a MiniDB database and upload it to my PDA. I also had scripts to check a bunch of websites, including Slashdot, and upload those. So then I would be walking around and someone would ask me, "what is the status of private Doe" and I could whip out the database and look him up. Or if I was sitting in a boring meeting I could be reading Slashdot.
I've owned two Palms and two Visors and all of them were money well-spent.
Re:Why Does Encryption Need to "Scramble" Informat
on
A Mighty Number Falls
·
· Score: 1
uh huh. Right. Let's see you write a paper and an example implimentation of that. Good luck.
To anyone who owns a modern PDA, how fast can you write? I've went through two Palms (no pun intended) and two handspring visors back in the late 90's and I loved them - but more importantly, I could enter text at least twice as fast as anyone I knew who had a WinCE device.
I just wanted to clarify for people who think that this is 100% green (I guess that everybody knew it wasn't because of all the electricity needed, but still).
If we had a system that used sunlight to split H2O - release the O2 into the air and use the H2 in our cars, then the exhaust would be H2O and *that* would be 100% green. But if you take O2 out of the system by bonding it to aluminium that's not as good.
In addition to what you said, I just want to point out that any idea to crack H2O that doesn't release O2 is bad. The article mentions a way to get H2 out of H2O, but the O2 gets locked up in the aluminum. So that means, if you drive around in your Hydrogen car, it is sucking from the atmosphere O2 **that you didn't put there**
Let me say that again: Your Hydrogen car would be sucking O2 out of the atmosphere. If everybody did this, then our global climate change problem would no longer be adding CO2, it would be removing O2, which seems almost as bad.
We've got to have, as you suggested, a way to crack water using a catalyst.
lesson 1: STOP FUCKING LAUGHING WHILE THE OTHER GUY IS TALKING.
"so the universe contains dark matter..." "hehe, hehehe. hehehehe." "and the ratio seems to be about 1/3:2/3..." "hehehe, hehee. hehehehehe. ehehe." "and the effect of this is..." "hehehe. ehehehehe."
jesus fucking christ, that sounded like bevis and butthead.
Slashdot Mirror
War might never be 'humane' but it certainly has the capacity to be a lot more humane then it is. The easiest way to make war safer, besides spewing some idealistic crap about 'lets never fight wars!'
Just playing devil's advocate, is it really a good thing for wars to be more humane? Look at the difference between Iraq and (Germany || Japan). Both Germany and Japan were absolutely fucking destroyed during WWII. As a result, the civilians quit. They threw up their hands and said, "screw this, we quit."
A few years later, Germany and Japan are two of the richest, most prosperous nations on Earth.
Contrast with Iraq. We try *really* hard not to hurt anyone, to avoid casualties, we apologize if we destroy a building. Result: civilians kind of shrug and do their best to live their lives and avoid the fighting. A group of foreign insurgents can move into a town and the civilians will say, "eh, they're not here to kill me so I don't care - it's none of my business."
At this rate, Iraq will continue to be a war zone indefinitely.
So all I'm saying, again as the devil's advocate - what if the people of Iraq had to suffer as much as the people of Germany or Japan suffered? Maybe they would say, "screw this - you foreign insurgents get the fuck out - we want the Americans to rebuild."
Maybe.
Re: How can MS be bound by GPL3 if they avoided using GPL3ed code after June 29?
Yes, you can. "GPLv2, or later"
You are (intentionally?) misrepresenting what the GPL says. If Microsoft distributes GPLv2 then ***Microsoft*** gets to choose if they are bound by GPLv2 or GPLv3. Example, I downloaded Apache back when it was covered by GPL2. I can make changes to it and distribute those changes under v2 or v3 if I want to. The people who made Apache cannot force me to upgrade to v3. However, now that v3 is out, Apache will be distributed under v3. If I now download Apache, I'm stuck in version 3.
So the answer to grandparent's question, "can MS be bound by GPL3 if they avoided using GPL3ed code" is that yes, MS avoids being bound by it. Basically they would have to never update linux - or fork it - but what they have right now is GPL2 and GPL2 it shall stay.
read GPL2 for yourself
If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
it already does this. click preferences -> search across computers.
a bunch of people who will work slavishly churning out a whole lot of crap they think is the most awesome thing ever.
Yep. I bet they've never had to do any maintenance at google. Everything they have is brand new (and admittedly, all of it is pretty awesome). The problem is that, take something like gmail for example. Gmail *has* to exist and be supported and updated and maintained for decades. What I'm getting at is, if you look at the big picture, you'll see that 90% of the time spent coding on gmail will necessarily be spent maintaining it, NOT writing it.
Now, I don't know what the code for gmail looks like. Maybe it's beautifully written, pretty-printed, commented, documented, poetry. Maybe. For the people who do that 90% of the work, I hope it's like that. What I have seen in my years in the software industry, is that people who can churn out lots of code and do lots of cool stuff, tend to write code that's very difficult to maintain.
So anyway yeah, like you said, college kids will work slavishly to churn something out. I just hope the code is readable because if not, google is going to pay for it in the long run.
Anyone can ask for source code from Microsoft.
Yeah, anyone can ask for source code for Ubuntu from Microsoft. So what?? You make it sound like OMFG NOW THEY HAVE TO GIVE ME WINDOWS!!!111oneone
holy cow! that rules! When is it due out?
but as other posters here have pointed out, some users' ISPs dork around with IPs. I have never understood why they do that? It doesn't increase throughput. I mean, I'm sure that AOL is multihomed, but switching a user from IP address x.y.z.100 to x.y.z.101 isn't moving them to a different segment, so I don't see how it helps anyone at all. I just don't get it.
I know you're joking but I'm a sucker so here goes: attitude means, "which direction is it pointed" They use big gyroscopes to keep the station oriented so that the solar panels can track the sun.
Maybe the new solar panels are a new input to the attitude program - "I am a new solar panel, I need to be pointed this way so that my 1 axis motor can track the sun"
c) it's completely under their control,
and that also figures into moderation. Slashdot moderation isn't perfect, but it is useful. I wonder if it would be possible to overlay some kind of moderation system on top of NNTP. I know that there are moderated newsgroups, but it's not even close to the same thing as community moderation. usenet clients also alow killfiles, and that's useful, but still not as good as comminuty moderation.
Also, for moderation to work, you have to know who people are (meaning, accounts like oni and hacksoncode) so you'd have to overlay that onto NNTP too.
I'm not sure any of this is possible.
If it was just $2 to get a new key, then spammers would be able to pay $2 per daily load of spam.
no, it'd be $2 (or three or whatever) per 100 or so emails. Spammers send millions of emails a day, so this would make their operating costs amount to $20,000 or so per day. That would put them out of business.
Of course, any commercial entity would be immediately blocked
Why? How would this stop my bank from sending me an email without any kind of registration (the same system we use today)?
I know that the answer is, "because this allows the ISP to make more money" but if we look at it from the perspective of what's best for users, why exactly is pay-per-message the best solution?
Instead, how about I create an anonymous identity including a public key, and I register that anonymous identity with some kind of authority, who charges a very small fee - say two or three dollars. Now I can send all the emails I want. Each email is signed with my private key and email clients can query the authority to verify that I am me. When they see that I am registered, they leave the email in the inbox.
If I start sending spam, then the people who get my email will start telling the authority, "hey, you said this guy was registered but he is spamming me" and then after some threshold, the authority would revoke my registration. Any email without a registration might be spam, and would be filtered just as we filter email today. Any email with a revoked registration is *definitely* spam and goes straight to the trash. Any email with a valid registration is definitely not spam.
From the spammer's perspective, they would have to pay $2 to register, but then they could only send 100 or so spams before they are revoked. That would get very expensive very fast.
Spammers might try to DOS someone by telling the authority, "this guy is sending me spam," and hoping to have that guy's email address revoked, but the authority will only listen to "this guy is sending me spam" messages from registered users - plus, the authority requires 100 or so notifications before revoking. So the spammer would need to pay $200 to revoke someone's key. And after they pay that $200 to revoke your key? All you have to do is pay $2 to obtain a new key.
Are you aware that the T in captcha stands for turing?
No, not *that* genesis (but I made you look, didn't I). The answer to the question, "why haven't we found life yet" really lies in the fact that what actually gets life going is still quite a mystery. As you know, scientists can simulate the conditions of early Earth and they can produce amino acids, but they can't produce DNA or simple cellular life.
My point is, we may still be missing something important and fundamental. That's what makes science so interesting. There is always something else to discover.
In Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, he makes reference to the work of another biologist whose name escapes me at the moment. But that guy's theory is that silicate crystals in soft clay are the necessary to get early life going. The theory goes like this: imagine a river with clay at the bottom. The clay forms microscopic crystals, which sometimes catch and constrain amino acids and other building blocks, like stuff getting stuck in the strainer in your sink.
As the crystals grow, they sometimes "empty the strainer" basically spitting out these now larger strands of amino acids. The strands and structures flow further down the river and inevitably get stuck in another crystal. There they grow larger and eventually get spit out. The process repeats all the way down the river.
At the mouth of the river, you've got billions of different pre-biotic experiments washing out into the sea. Just by chance, one of those experiments is able to reproduce itself. Life is unstoppable at that point.
So what I'm getting at is this: we keep finding *some* of the building blocks, but we aren't finding them arranged the correct way. A static sea (maybe even with hydrothermal vents) on Titan or Europa or Mars may be able to support current Earth life, but it may not be able to spark that all-important genesis event.
On the other hand, early Mars may have been perfect for this.
I have heard before that the outer skin is so thin that it actually wouldn't be strong enough to survive launch. But when they fill it with fuel, it gets colder and more britle and that makes it just strong enough.
So there is some truth to what you're saying. Well, I'll just keep my fingers crossed and hope the launch goes off ok.
It is possible that this may end up being a spectacular launch.
aw, don't say that! Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but foam comming off isn't so bad in and of itself, right? What happened with Columbia is that you had foam soaked in water (and frozen) so it was substantially more mass and therefore did more damage.
my first thought when I saw the redesign was that the programmers there don't really grok XHTML. They totally went about it the wrong way. You are supposed to think about data streams and then later use css to style it. But Fark's programmers clearly thought about presentaion only, and tried to make the data stream fit the layout they wanted. Along the way, they ended up with inline styles, extra useless divs, etc. The whole thing is just very awkward. They obviously aren't geeks.
And no, that isn't meant to flame them. IT's just my humble opinion. That site is so big now that they should be able to do better. All drew had to do was to ask his millions of users to help out. Hell, even slashdot had a css contest.
plug their dirty headphones in your ear?
just plug your headphones into their ipod.
What's the matter, you don't have your mp3 player with you? Well then, you wouldn't be able to share with the zune either.
Stop checking it so often
indeed. I have turned off the "you've got mail" icons and popups and such. I have a rule that will pop up a message if my boss emails me, but otherwise it's silent. When I get bored, I check my email.
That really is the key.
Why was that faster ? Whast was different between those devices ?
Keep in mind that my experience with this was a long time ago, between 1998 and 2001. So, I'm seriously dated as far as the technology goes. I went from a management position to a programming position in 2002 and found that I no longer needed a PDA, so I haven't owned one sense.
I guess it was around 1999 that a couple of bigwigs got expensive windows PDAs and were kind of bragging about how cool they were. The two important differences that I noticed were:
1: With the windows PDAs you wrote directly on the screen. The Palms had a separate text entry area that was the same sort of thing as the mouse on a laptop. If you think about a laptop, you know that you will get much greater resolution on the mouse than you get if write on a touchscreen. So point one was that the Palm text entry area was of higher resolution and thus more accurate.
2: They were drawing actual letters. When they wrote an A, they actually wrote A. On the Palm, I would write something like ^ (if memory serves). So point two, they actually took longer to draw the characters.
3: Because their software had to figure out actual characters (drawn in lower resolution) it took longer to turn their writing into text. They were actually pausing between characters and watching the PDA figure out what they had drawn. The Palm software was using symbols that had been custom designed to be unambiguous, so even though the processor was undoubtedly slower, the Palm was turning my writing into text just as fast as I could enter it.
A couple of times, I challenged someone to a race and just blew them away. I don't really think that they cared too much though because they mostly used the PDAs to look up stuff, to read emails (synced emails, there was no wireless), and to manage their schedule. I could do all of that plus I could actually jot down notes on my Visor. That was impractical for them, but I'm not sure they really cared. Another cool thing about the visor was that you could plug in little modules. I had a vibrator module (giggity giggity) so that it would vibrate rather than use the audible alarm to remind me of a meeting. That was awesome, as I was often outside around equipment and couldn't hear the alarm.
At the time, there was much more software for the PalmOS too. Every morning, I would get a report of the current status of the soldiers in my company. I had a script that would convert that to a MiniDB database and upload it to my PDA. I also had scripts to check a bunch of websites, including Slashdot, and upload those. So then I would be walking around and someone would ask me, "what is the status of private Doe" and I could whip out the database and look him up. Or if I was sitting in a boring meeting I could be reading Slashdot.
I've owned two Palms and two Visors and all of them were money well-spent.
uh huh. Right. Let's see you write a paper and an example implimentation of that. Good luck.
To anyone who owns a modern PDA, how fast can you write? I've went through two Palms (no pun intended) and two handspring visors back in the late 90's and I loved them - but more importantly, I could enter text at least twice as fast as anyone I knew who had a WinCE device.
Has that changed?
Not if you redirect all the mail from a domain you own into our gmail account.
Is that because you're sending more email to the gmail account or are you saying it's because google downgrades its spam filter when you redirect?
thanks.
I just wanted to clarify for people who think that this is 100% green (I guess that everybody knew it wasn't because of all the electricity needed, but still).
If we had a system that used sunlight to split H2O - release the O2 into the air and use the H2 in our cars, then the exhaust would be H2O and *that* would be 100% green. But if you take O2 out of the system by bonding it to aluminium that's not as good.
In addition to what you said, I just want to point out that any idea to crack H2O that doesn't release O2 is bad. The article mentions a way to get H2 out of H2O, but the O2 gets locked up in the aluminum. So that means, if you drive around in your Hydrogen car, it is sucking from the atmosphere O2 **that you didn't put there**
Let me say that again: Your Hydrogen car would be sucking O2 out of the atmosphere. If everybody did this, then our global climate change problem would no longer be adding CO2, it would be removing O2, which seems almost as bad.
We've got to have, as you suggested, a way to crack water using a catalyst.
lesson 1: STOP FUCKING LAUGHING WHILE THE OTHER GUY IS TALKING.
"so the universe contains dark matter..."
"hehe, hehehe. hehehehe."
"and the ratio seems to be about 1/3:2/3..."
"hehehe, hehee. hehehehehe. ehehe."
"and the effect of this is..."
"hehehe. ehehehehe."
jesus fucking christ, that sounded like bevis and butthead.