I'm curious as to the possibility of adaptive abuse control if, in this 'cognitive' scheme, devices are communicating with each other about usage of the shared resource.
For instance, if enough devices agree that some device is being a hog, they can first ask it to to desist, and second pull off some sort of DDoS (jamming, injecting garbage spoofed packets, whatev) to knock the abuser out.
I've really no idea: is something like this possible?
Actually, we did. Leading up to Pearl Harbor, we provoked their attack through economic means, and by moving to block Japan's expansion into key areas. Japan had made it quite clear that they wanted all of Asia, and we made it quite clear that that wasn't going to happen. We simply held back on making a first overt strike to give ourselves time to build.
Also, to the both of ya:
>>...any more than we asked Germany to attack our shipping in the Atlantic. > Not until you got dragged into the war did you stick up for anybody.
Um, excuse me? Lend-lease, anyone? 'We' were helping 'you' out well before we became explicitly involved in the fighting. This was also a major reason for Germany's attacks: a significant portion of our 'shipping in the Atlantic' was aid for Germany's enemies.
They make these books. About history. Look into it. Both of you.
Also, re: the original argument and the whole 'war on terror' thing, look up the CIA-originated word, "blowback".
Thing is, Facebook isn't just about "climbing a social ladder". I use it to keep in touch with people, keep track of some groups of people with mutual interests, and I regularly use it to plan and coordinate events (movie nights, dinner parties, even random lunches). It's a very useful tool. As for "posting in a public place", I'm always confused by people with privacy concerns...the privacy controls on Facebook can be set such that you can see basically nothing but a name and a tiny thumbnail of a person's profile pic, unless/until you become their friend. Now maybe this is a problem for people who automatically click "add" on any friend request, but if you only befriend people you actually know, it's all good.
guess what! Doom is whatever the creators wanted it to be. not what you want. Guess what! If they make it what customers want it to be, customers will buy it! Guess what! Plenty of customers bought it as it was, and liked it! Apparently not everyone wants what you want! GASP!
Hmm...while, yes, the sun is (mostly) made up of gasses, it is still very dense, so I don't know that 'gauzy' is the right word. It's dense enough for fusion to take place in the core, and for the photons that are the energy thus released to take thousands of years to reach the surface. Not solid, but certainly no morning fog, either.
The little bit you might be able to see through is just the very upper atmosphere (probably gaps under prominences and CMEs), and the best views of that kind of stuff aren't in visible light anyway, since the sun is brightest in visible light, and tends to overwhelm instruments and eyes. For an image in other wavelengths, I don't know that it's stars you're seeing (could just be image artifacts), and the color is false anyway.
I've been studying this stuff for class, and this really is a cool movie & event in its own right. I mean, judging from the article, this wave was moving at close to.2% of light speed, which is quite fast. A tsunami on Earth moving that fast would sweep across the surface in a little over a minute. Boom.
Indeed. However, community college does not exclude one from prestige (and the doors it can open). My educational path was:
GED (mediocre score, I had...deficiencies) Community College (4 years, AA, 4.0...well okay, 3.975...it rounds) Top 40 Liberal Arts College (3 years, BA, 3.85) Ivy League Grad School (currently working on a PhD)
And nothing fluffy either--I'm in physics, and I hope to work in fusion power when I'm done here. I got an awesome education at my community college, and it was a great environment. Taking plenty of time there to work on my writing skills has especially helped me (my school/grant application letters are...unique, and I believe a good, attention-holding letter is a foot in the door). Sure, you run into a bunch of career-focused robots (just like in standard Colleges and Universities), but they're easy to ignore. If you look, you'll find plenty of people who are there simply to learn as much as they can.
I find I am especially appreciative of the number of 'non-traditional' (read: not fresh out of high school) students I had the chance to work with there. They add some maturity and experience, and quite a few of them are attending simply out of a desire to improve themselves. Even at my 'top 40' liberal arts college, there were plenty of kids who really weren't ready for college--some people just take longer to realize that they don't like being ignorant, and it takes a lot of courage to go back to school and do something about it.
As for quality of education, at least half of those who I'd list as the best professors I've had were at my community college. Frankly, the majority of the profs at my Ivy are pretty poor teachers--the focus is on research, and they don't have the time to put real effort into improving their teaching.
For what it's worth: don't aim low, no matter where you go, or what you do.
Hence, you can run Battlestar Galactica at 10:00pm on a Friday and get record numbers of us to tune in - they know we're not doing anything else on Friday night from 10-11 pm.
Hmm...you know, I've seen this argument before, and now that I think of it, I'm not so sure about its accuracy. I mean, take someone outside of the usual "Sci Fi watcher" sterotype, i.e. someone who goes out into the world on Fridays. The bars & clubs don't really get hopping until 11/midnight anyway. Why not watch some Sci Fi with your pregame? ^_^
""Energy-momentum is what causes space-time to curve,...""
"Just for clarification: So, gravity by itself doesn't cause space-time to curve?"
The 'curvature' that Einstein described with GR isn't _caused_ by gravity it _is_ gravity. He figured out a way to describe gravity (or, equivalently, acceleration) as the curvature of space-time.
As for energy-momentum: E=mc^2. We generally say mass is what causes the gravity/curvature, but per relativity we know mass is just really dense energy.
Note that E=mc^2 is only the 'rest energy'--when moving, a particle has total energy described by E^2/c^2=m^2c^2 + p^2, where p is the momentum. Thus mass, energy, and momentum are all interrelated.
"...assuming Space has an exact center..." "...'spinning' is a perceived phenomena and not a reality?"
One of the corollaries you reach from the postulates of relativity is that there is no absolute movement. All movement is relative to something else.
We call the motion of everything in and on Earth relative to its own center 'rotation'. We call the motion of the same stuff relative to the Sun, 'revolution'. We call the motion of Earth relative to some chunk of rock near Alpha Centauri, 'zigzaggy'.
"Would a ray of light even notice it was being deflected?"
An odd question, but probably. It would feel the acceleration/gravity, and would feel more the closer it got to the center of gravity.
"we likely do not really know the rotational period of the Sun about the Milkyway nor the movement of the Milkyway itself."
Actually, we do know these pretty well.
By studying our velocity with respect to the velocity of other stars in the Milky Way, we can find a period of about 230 million years.
By studying the Doppler shifting of spectra of light from other nearby galaxies, we can find their velocity with respect to us (at least along the line of sight). For instance, we know Andromeda is blue-shifted, and so is heading towards us (and/or we're heading towards it). This is where the theory that the universe is expanding comes from: most stuff is heading away from us, and the farther away it is, the faster that recession velocity.
In order for the balloon analogy to be correct, you must take into account that the inhabitants are entirely 2-D. They can only look around on x & y axes. The 'up-down' (or 'centerward-anticenterward') z axis has no meaning to them, just as a fourth axis is mentally and visually inconceivable for us. (Draw x, y, and z axes. Now draw an axis perpendicular to all three...yeah.) They have no ability to look 'through' the balloon, just as we have no ability to look into our '4th axis'.
On the balloon, the 'universe' is an observationally 'flat', 2-D plane...for us, the universe is a 'flat', 3-D space. At long enough measuring distances, you might detect some hints of curvature, such as the angles in a triangle adding to less than 180 degrees. This would indicate the degree of curvature, but again would have no directional significance.
We actually think we know rather well how fast the universe is expanding. It's called the Hubble Constant, and is generally accepted to be 'around' 2/3 * 100km s^-1/Mpc. In other words, objects 1 Megaparsec apart will be moving away from each other at about 66km/s.
Measuring is one thing. Finding a center is another. If you imagine that the universe is actually smaller than the distance light has traveled since its first emission, then when we look out in any direction, we may actually be seeing ourselves (far, far away). How do you place a center of the universe when you can look out and see the back of your own head? Especially when everything is constantly moving.
I'm starting to meander now...time for my hour of sleep before classes. X_x
I tend to speak with such brevity when I assume I'm speaking to one familiar with the scientific method. Chill. Or if you prefer: The Flying Spaghetti Monster told me it was so. May you too be touched by his noodly appendage.
As for the CMB thing...what does direction of travel have to do with it? Even though the CMB is anisotropic, and might yield some vague relative sense of movement direction, that doesn't mean it would give any indication of an absolute center, since (theoretically) it was emitted by the recombination of omni-present plasma, and is cooled uniformly by Hubble expansion.
"But if it's expanding, it must be expanding _from_ somewhere, right?"
No, not in any observable way.
The best analogy I've got for this is to think about the surface of a balloon. This surface is a curved, 2-dimensional space--if you were a 2-D inhabitant on the surface, you would not know about its curavture. If you had tiny markers on the balloon, as it inflated they would become more distant from each other. There is no 'center' to your 2-D world, the space between the markers is itself expanding, because your 2-D surface is being expanded into the extra 3rd dimension.
Similarly, there is no center to our 3-D world. It is, in a sense, expanding into a 4th dimension, and the space between galaxies is increasing as a result. This is somewhat of a misnomer ('4th dimension'), but it gets the point across.
The only reason galaxies, planets, etc. (all matter) don't expand along with this is the effect of the elemental forces. Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong Nuclear force all pull stuff together at certain scales, thus clumping matter together depite the expansion of space.
And yes, IAAAP (I Am An AstroPhysicist)...or at least an astrophysicist in training.
Uhm, where did he say it was 'ok?' He's taking issue with the assertion that it is the 'worst type of theft,' probably as opposed to stuff like, oh, shooting someone to get their wallet/shoes/cheese. Buh.
I believe the high strength-to-mass ratio for carbon nanotubes is part of what inspired that fifty year timeframe NASA has. Have to figure out how to mass-produce the stuff first though.
If I remember correctly, if it was counter-weighted right, most breaks would send the cable flying off into space instead of down to the surface. Something like that.
> The founding fathers were deeply religious, and
> intended this as a Christian nation.
Um, incorrect. Whilst some of the authors of the Constitution were indeed Christian, there were also atheists and a large number of deists.
> Certainly they never intended this to be an
> atheistic or nontheistic nation.
No, but they did intend it to be a nation where you could be an atheist. Or a deist. Or whatever. They intended it to be a nation where no one was forced into any religion, and where church and state were separated. This partially came from their own beliefs (and the diversity therin), and partially from seeing the corruption that rose from the Church of England. Religion and government are both immensely powerful institutions, and are prone to corruption. Adding them together is like adding an oily rag to a bottle of gas, and thus we have a Molotov cocktail...and people get burned.
...back to work. (this comment brought to you by a summer US History I course;)
Slashdot Mirror
> Maybe AIG should give these spiders out, instead of bonuses?
+1 I'll post your bail.
NanoCrafts for Space Kindergarten? The future really is now!
*puts on 3D glasses*
Whoosh
> ...how simplistic and boring the story in these games was...
> ...I never really figured out too much of what was going on...
*fzzt*
I'm not sure whether I should offer you high literature or sock puppets as alternatives.
I'm curious as to the possibility of adaptive abuse control if, in this 'cognitive' scheme, devices are communicating with each other about usage of the shared resource.
For instance, if enough devices agree that some device is being a hog, they can first ask it to to desist, and second pull off some sort of DDoS (jamming, injecting garbage spoofed packets, whatev) to knock the abuser out.
I've really no idea: is something like this possible?
Hmm...
>> We didn't ask Japan to attack Pearl Harbor...
Actually, we did. Leading up to Pearl Harbor, we provoked their attack through economic means, and by moving to block Japan's expansion into key areas. Japan had made it quite clear that they wanted all of Asia, and we made it quite clear that that wasn't going to happen. We simply held back on making a first overt strike to give ourselves time to build.
Also, to the both of ya:
>> ...any more than we asked Germany to attack our shipping in the Atlantic.
> Not until you got dragged into the war did you stick up for anybody.
Um, excuse me? Lend-lease, anyone? 'We' were helping 'you' out well before we became explicitly involved in the fighting. This was also a major reason for Germany's attacks: a significant portion of our 'shipping in the Atlantic' was aid for Germany's enemies.
They make these books. About history. Look into it. Both of you.
Also, re: the original argument and the whole 'war on terror' thing, look up the CIA-originated word, "blowback".
> The fact that you keep replying to me is more evidence of you denial than anything.
The fact that he actively disagrees with you is proof that he's wrong?
Wow, you should be in politics.
Thing is, Facebook isn't just about "climbing a social ladder". I use it to keep in touch with people, keep track of some groups of people with mutual interests, and I regularly use it to plan and coordinate events (movie nights, dinner parties, even random lunches). It's a very useful tool. As for "posting in a public place", I'm always confused by people with privacy concerns...the privacy controls on Facebook can be set such that you can see basically nothing but a name and a tiny thumbnail of a person's profile pic, unless/until you become their friend. Now maybe this is a problem for people who automatically click "add" on any friend request, but if you only befriend people you actually know, it's all good.
Why only the 95%? Go for the good stuff, man!
Hmm...while, yes, the sun is (mostly) made up of gasses, it is still very dense, so I don't know that 'gauzy' is the right word. It's dense enough for fusion to take place in the core, and for the photons that are the energy thus released to take thousands of years to reach the surface. Not solid, but certainly no morning fog, either.
.2% of light speed, which is quite fast. A tsunami on Earth moving that fast would sweep across the surface in a little over a minute. Boom.
The little bit you might be able to see through is just the very upper atmosphere (probably gaps under prominences and CMEs), and the best views of that kind of stuff aren't in visible light anyway, since the sun is brightest in visible light, and tends to overwhelm instruments and eyes. For an image in other wavelengths, I don't know that it's stars you're seeing (could just be image artifacts), and the color is false anyway.
I've been studying this stuff for class, and this really is a cool movie & event in its own right. I mean, judging from the article, this wave was moving at close to
Indeed. However, community college does not exclude one from prestige (and the doors it can open). My educational path was:
GED (mediocre score, I had...deficiencies)
Community College (4 years, AA, 4.0...well okay, 3.975...it rounds)
Top 40 Liberal Arts College (3 years, BA, 3.85)
Ivy League Grad School (currently working on a PhD)
And nothing fluffy either--I'm in physics, and I hope to work in fusion power when I'm done here. I got an awesome education at my community college, and it was a great environment. Taking plenty of time there to work on my writing skills has especially helped me (my school/grant application letters are...unique, and I believe a good, attention-holding letter is a foot in the door). Sure, you run into a bunch of career-focused robots (just like in standard Colleges and Universities), but they're easy to ignore. If you look, you'll find plenty of people who are there simply to learn as much as they can.
I find I am especially appreciative of the number of 'non-traditional' (read: not fresh out of high school) students I had the chance to work with there. They add some maturity and experience, and quite a few of them are attending simply out of a desire to improve themselves. Even at my 'top 40' liberal arts college, there were plenty of kids who really weren't ready for college--some people just take longer to realize that they don't like being ignorant, and it takes a lot of courage to go back to school and do something about it.
As for quality of education, at least half of those who I'd list as the best professors I've had were at my community college. Frankly, the majority of the profs at my Ivy are pretty poor teachers--the focus is on research, and they don't have the time to put real effort into improving their teaching.
For what it's worth: don't aim low, no matter where you go, or what you do.
Exactly. When the sun goes red giant, we've at least got to be on Europa by then!
Hence, you can run Battlestar Galactica at 10:00pm on a Friday and get record numbers of us to tune in - they know we're not doing anything else on Friday night from 10-11 pm.
Hmm...you know, I've seen this argument before, and now that I think of it, I'm not so sure about its accuracy. I mean, take someone outside of the usual "Sci Fi watcher" sterotype, i.e. someone who goes out into the world on Fridays. The bars & clubs don't really get hopping until 11/midnight anyway. Why not watch some Sci Fi with your pregame? ^_^
*cough* BSG + Moonshine = WIN!
""Energy-momentum is what causes space-time to curve,...""
"Just for clarification: So, gravity by itself doesn't cause space-time to curve?"
The 'curvature' that Einstein described with GR isn't _caused_ by gravity it _is_ gravity. He figured out a way to describe gravity (or, equivalently, acceleration) as the curvature of space-time.
As for energy-momentum: E=mc^2. We generally say mass is what causes the gravity/curvature, but per relativity we know mass is just really dense energy.
Note that E=mc^2 is only the 'rest energy'--when moving, a particle has total energy described by E^2/c^2=m^2c^2 + p^2, where p is the momentum. Thus mass, energy, and momentum are all interrelated.
"...assuming Space has an exact center..."
"...'spinning' is a perceived phenomena and not a reality?"
One of the corollaries you reach from the postulates of relativity is that there is no absolute movement. All movement is relative to something else.
We call the motion of everything in and on Earth relative to its own center 'rotation'. We call the motion of the same stuff relative to the Sun, 'revolution'. We call the motion of Earth relative to some chunk of rock near Alpha Centauri, 'zigzaggy'.
"Would a ray of light even notice it was being deflected?"
An odd question, but probably. It would feel the acceleration/gravity, and would feel more the closer it got to the center of gravity.
"we likely do not really know the rotational period of the Sun about the Milkyway nor the movement of the Milkyway itself."
Actually, we do know these pretty well.
By studying our velocity with respect to the velocity of other stars in the Milky Way, we can find a period of about 230 million years.
By studying the Doppler shifting of spectra of light from other nearby galaxies, we can find their velocity with respect to us (at least along the line of sight). For instance, we know Andromeda is blue-shifted, and so is heading towards us (and/or we're heading towards it). This is where the theory that the universe is expanding comes from: most stuff is heading away from us, and the farther away it is, the faster that recession velocity.
In order for the balloon analogy to be correct, you must take into account that the inhabitants are entirely 2-D. They can only look around on x & y axes. The 'up-down' (or 'centerward-anticenterward') z axis has no meaning to them, just as a fourth axis is mentally and visually inconceivable for us. (Draw x, y, and z axes. Now draw an axis perpendicular to all three...yeah.) They have no ability to look 'through' the balloon, just as we have no ability to look into our '4th axis'.
On the balloon, the 'universe' is an observationally 'flat', 2-D plane...for us, the universe is a 'flat', 3-D space. At long enough measuring distances, you might detect some hints of curvature, such as the angles in a triangle adding to less than 180 degrees. This would indicate the degree of curvature, but again would have no directional significance.
We actually think we know rather well how fast the universe is expanding. It's called the Hubble Constant, and is generally accepted to be 'around' 2/3 * 100km s^-1/Mpc. In other words, objects 1 Megaparsec apart will be moving away from each other at about 66km/s.
Measuring is one thing. Finding a center is another. If you imagine that the universe is actually smaller than the distance light has traveled since its first emission, then when we look out in any direction, we may actually be seeing ourselves (far, far away). How do you place a center of the universe when you can look out and see the back of your own head? Especially when everything is constantly moving.
I'm starting to meander now...time for my hour of sleep before classes. X_x
I tend to speak with such brevity when I assume I'm speaking to one familiar with the scientific method. Chill. Or if you prefer: The Flying Spaghetti Monster told me it was so. May you too be touched by his noodly appendage.
As for the CMB thing...what does direction of travel have to do with it? Even though the CMB is anisotropic, and might yield some vague relative sense of movement direction, that doesn't mean it would give any indication of an absolute center, since (theoretically) it was emitted by the recombination of omni-present plasma, and is cooled uniformly by Hubble expansion.
Did you mean something other than what I infer?
There is no center of the Universe!
"But if it's expanding, it must be expanding _from_ somewhere, right?"
No, not in any observable way.
The best analogy I've got for this is to think about the surface of a balloon. This surface is a curved, 2-dimensional space--if you were a 2-D inhabitant on the surface, you would not know about its curavture. If you had tiny markers on the balloon, as it inflated they would become more distant from each other. There is no 'center' to your 2-D world, the space between the markers is itself expanding, because your 2-D surface is being expanded into the extra 3rd dimension.
Similarly, there is no center to our 3-D world. It is, in a sense, expanding into a 4th dimension, and the space between galaxies is increasing as a result. This is somewhat of a misnomer ('4th dimension'), but it gets the point across.
The only reason galaxies, planets, etc. (all matter) don't expand along with this is the effect of the elemental forces. Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong Nuclear force all pull stuff together at certain scales, thus clumping matter together depite the expansion of space.
And yes, IAAAP (I Am An AstroPhysicist)...or at least an astrophysicist in training.
Uhm, where did he say it was 'ok?' He's taking issue with the assertion that it is the 'worst type of theft,' probably as opposed to stuff like, oh, shooting someone to get their wallet/shoes/cheese. Buh.
I believe the high strength-to-mass ratio for carbon nanotubes is part of what inspired that fifty year timeframe NASA has. Have to figure out how to mass-produce the stuff first though.
If I remember correctly, if it was counter-weighted right, most breaks would send the cable flying off into space instead of down to the surface. Something like that.
:P
> The founding fathers were deeply religious, and
...back to work. (this comment brought to you by a summer US History I course ;)
> intended this as a Christian nation.
Um, incorrect. Whilst some of the authors of the Constitution were indeed Christian, there were also atheists and a large number of deists.
> Certainly they never intended this to be an
> atheistic or nontheistic nation.
No, but they did intend it to be a nation where you could be an atheist. Or a deist. Or whatever. They intended it to be a nation where no one was forced into any religion, and where church and state were separated. This partially came from their own beliefs (and the diversity therin), and partially from seeing the corruption that rose from the Church of England. Religion and government are both immensely powerful institutions, and are prone to corruption. Adding them together is like adding an oily rag to a bottle of gas, and thus we have a Molotov cocktail...and people get burned.
If I remember correctly, http://www.activision.com/
Of course, with my memory, don't get all excited:P
Err, if they're invisible, how can they be pink?
:P
er
MPEG3 = MPEG version 3
MP3 = MPEG version 1 audio layer 3
At least I think so...