An educated man is a free man. Adults and children should be able to view what they want, when they want - in order to educate themselves to become more free. It doesn't matter if it is porn, the Constitution, the Bible, a work on the occult, or the back of a gum wrapper - free men have the right to free information, not information cloaked to "protect us" - protect us from what? The ability to see hidden agendas?
I have read most of the threads on this article, and two stood out in my mind, both negative - 1) That a LG spinoff would deteriorate rather quickly because of lack of material, and 2) That the X-Files was boring, because of material that was "too out-there"...
My response on both of these - Do any of you troll the web? I mean, so many times I come across article, rants and various other discussions about how the web is so commercialized and how there is nothing interesting on it, only to shake my head knowing these people are wrong. With a few search engines and some clicks, I have found all manner of strange things - as long as people can publish their own stuff, there will always be fun pages out there...
Here is one - which, strangely enough, I found while trolling Ebay for something or another:
http://table.jps.net/~einc/index.html
It is called the Constant Society - I can't figure out if the guy who wrote this page believes this stuff, what portion is real and fake, or whether it is all a joke (probably the last). At any rate, I think this has to be one of the stranger pages. The material on this site alone could last the LG a season, if tweaked right.
And this is only one site - keelynet and eskimo could last a few seasons (both LG and XF), and there are many more sites out there. Considering what has been done on the X-Files, I can't believe the amount of stuff that hasn't been covered in that show (and if you read a fair amount of occult and high strangeness material, you know what I mean).
If done right, there is a lot of material to be covered - heck, pull some stories based on stuff from Weekly World News (like the Ape-Man story that recently ran - what was funny about that story - it is TRUE. One of the few true stories they run every now and then, I had previously watched on TV a show detailing the life and times behind that strange chimpanzee, with video of the animal walking upright and such - makes me want to go out to that zoo in Texas to see for myself!)...
She goes to some no-name search engine, and types in "white house" -- and promptly gets directed to www.whitehouse.com. A hardcore (whatever that means) porn site.
You are presupposing here: a) That when you do a search on a search engine, it automatically redirects you to the page, and b) That the text that a search engine returns includes no "summary" of the main page.
Every search engine I have used had a summary, and required the user to click on a link to go to that page. Generally (not always), the summary includes enough information for you to determine if the site is a sex site or the real thing. If you click on the link, and are horrified by a sex site, you weren't paying attention - and should rightfully be shaken.
have you tried to have sex in the middle of your public library lately?
Not lately...hmm...
Of course, my alternative is to expose them to pedophiles. What would you suggest I do?
Whooaa! Hold on here, fella! Where did we go from viewing a sex site in the library to pedophiles? Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who looks at a sex site in the library is a pedophile? I didn't see any wording to that effect, but I get a strong hint for some reason...
I'll tell you what I would do, especially if I'm not very bright
And here is the exact problem - too many people are not bright. I would go so far as to say that many people are quite dim when it comes to their rights as human beings and adults, the issues surrounding this whole debate, the agendas that are being pushed, and the technology surrounding all this. I bet if we had a more INFORMED and EDUCATED populace, this so-called "problem" wouldn't be an issue.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should have no moral standards?
No, I am suggesting that we should have logical moral standards. I mean, not many care about the amount of violence shown on television, games and the internet, but as soon as a naked person walks by, all hell breaks loose! Over what? Some skin? We can show (in slow motion) a bullet penetrating a body, with accompaning gore, and no one cares. Show a penis entering a woman's vagina: OH MY GAWD!
Why don't we talk openly with our kids about sex? Why do we think that our kids won't ever try any of the stuff that some consider "aberrant" - even when they reach adulthood? Many will try strange things later in life, just because the missionary position gets BORING! But we never talk about these acts. We don't dare discuss even stranger behaviors - to the point where we don't have a clue as to WHY people do them! We can't even speculate - because we don't talk!
The answer to this issue is that we should talk, openly and freely. We should educate and inform all those involved, both adults and children. Perhaps with that will we begin down the road to sanity on this issue...
You state: Very few/. readers would agree that children should be able to view something that goes against their parents or the publics beliefs. Consider me one of those/. readers! I say anyone with a modicum of brains should encourage both children and adults to question everything said/posed/taught to them, lest we all become a herd of mindless drones spouting corporate/religious/government dogma! Question "authority", for authority may be wrong...
Then there's LDS. Nevermind the people who don't have a sober friend guide them while they trip and end up killing themself in some dumb way or another, screwing with your brain chemistry has nasty effects like flashbacks later in life. Whee!
Yeah, those damn Mormons can fuck you life up everytime you interact wit... oh...waitaminute...you meant LSD!
OK - not having any access to simulation software or anything (nor any education in the geometry of the thing), I kinda suspected there might be an issue.
However, I still think there should be a shape that has 3 focus points - maybe. Or at least a series of shapes - any ideas?
Essentially what I said previously, except multiple bullets in the barrel, each seperated by a charge. The charges are electronically controlled (set off), the heat of the explosion expands the bullet behind it, keeping the heat from igniting the charges behind the next bullet. Rate of fire determined by barrel cooling, and rate at which bullets leave barrel.
Better trust the software/hardware behind these devices - can you imagine what would happen if the wrong bullet was fired out of order (Oops! Where did my hand go!)...
From what I can tell, all this seems to be is an electronic firing system (think of a multi-barreled gun, with a bullet in each barrel, and each bullet wired to fire - hence no moving parts, high rate of fire - but not many bullets to fire).
Personally, I think a machine gun would be better, as these devices seem to make you reload after only a few shots (4-6 in the handgun case, maybe 50 or so in the larger versions). In the case of a handgun, it might make a little sense - but for anything where you want to "hose" something for a little while, well...
Heh! I see someone prior to me had a similar idea - I also have an idea on how to make the "wire" work at longer distances, as well as to connect the gates...
Imagine a chain - each link on the chain is one of these ellipse rings, perpendicular to each other, with the ring surrounding the focal points (so that the rings don't actually touch, but merely enclose the focal points). Now, when an atom is placed at the focus, and the image appears at the other focus, the next link will carry it one (albeit with further degradation, I would suppose).
Imagine the links to be the gate inputs/outputs and you can see how this could be used.
As far as a NOT gate is concerned, maybe some priciple of phase canceling waves could be used here - I am not a physicist, and especially not a quantum physicist, but I am thinking that if you took the cardoid shape gate, and put a particle that had a 180 phase inverted wave symmetry in one lobe, then the presence or absence of a particle in the other lobe (with opposite symmetry), would cause the image to appear/disappear on the other end, creating a NOT'ed-style output...
Maybe...
For the chain thing to work - we have to learn to manipulate these atoms in 3D (rather than work on a 2D atomic surface)...
OK, here is my contribution to this idea - I have a thought on how to make an AND gate:
These devices rely on what appears to be a weird focusing effect of the wave-like behavior of atoms. In theory, if you can do it with wave-guides, maybe you can do it with nano.
Right now, they have a "straight" style wave guide - the wave at one end focusing and creating an image at the other end of the ring. What if you made, instead of a ring shape, a cardoid (I think that is right) shape - in other words, think of a "rounded bottom" heart.
If done right, maybe an atom placed at one of the lobes of the heart would be too weak to "focus" strongly at the bottom of the heart, but place one in each lobe, and it would form a good and solid image at the bottom (due to the images overlapping?).
A slightly modified form of this same AND gate might be able to produce an OR style gate (just get it to be able to take one of the two inputs at the lobes and focus it properly).
I am not sure how you would be able to do a NOT gate - would such a gate even be possible (I am imagining the wave nature of the particles - if the particle isn't there, how do you get another in a different area to appear?)...
Can a cardoid shape be made (did they use a ring because the configuration was stable)?
Amplifiers for the "signals" will also have to be made (how do you build a wave amplifier? Some kind of resonance thing?)...
I didn't think so, either (that it used photogrammetry), but I wanted to present the info on it so that people would know about it.
The software developed for this device may be new, but getting depth information from a greyscale image isn't - such techniques are also discussed in cartography textbooks, as well were used in the 3D imaging of the "face" on Mars (along with photogrammetry, I believe, since they had two different images as well - however, I think greyscale extraction was more useful, since the two images were taken at different times of "day").
Regarding using beams of light and special software - I wonder if you could build your own rig using a scanned laser, a high quality video camera, and some digitizing software? Set the object on a turntable, set it rotating, and scan the laser in a vertical "stripe" across the surface. Do a real-time video capture, strip out the individual frames, then do the greyscale analysis on those frames, along the line of the laser path. The various values could then be used to calculate "depth" values along the surface of a cylinder, say (or, have some way to keep track of the angle of the object on the turntable - maybe a potentiometer hooked to a joystick port, or a mouse wheel sensor, something like that - then use that to calculate the radian offset around the Y axis).
This device seems way overpriced for what it does - it should be able to be done much cheaper. Maybe I should break out a Quickcam, an old recordplayer, a key chain laser pointer, and some duct tape - and see what happens!
Give these experiments a TRY! Even if they AREN'T ball lightning, what you will see will be worth it. Just a simple lit match stuck in a pink eraser in a microwave set on high for a minute, the effects are AMAZING. Of course, if you happen to hate the smell of ozone, then you may not like it...
The method usually used to generate 3D models from multiple photos is called photogrammetry - and is used in aerial imaging to extract elevation from multiple shots of terrain. It is explained in just about any good cartography textbook.
Essentially, for consumer use, the camera is flipped horizontal with the subject in front of it. Everything proceeds according to Zagadka's description, pretty much.
Incidentally, there is an old copy of Byte magazine, from the late 1970's describing how to extract the 3D information from multiple shots, with included BASIC code to calculate the 3D vertices from the 2D inputs. Pretty cool - crazy though that only NOW are we actually using this at the consumer level, even though an article in a well known computer magazine has languished for nigh 20 years!
You know, this is one thing that has bothered me (and I guess, could even be considered about the originals):
Something like the Constitution (and the DOI), the concepts are very important, but what is to stop anyone with a digital copy of changing certain words and such to match thier own agenda (say over a period of several decades)? Indeed, who is to say the paper copy of the Constitution is the true original?
We not only need a way of protecting the information from bit rot, we also need to remember to implement the ways (which exist!) to protect these documents from alteration!
Remember to clock down when writing to disk or tape, then back up...
BTW - from what I remember, in one of the last issues of Rainbow Magazine (the ones that were printed on newsprint, and looked like a newspaper), there was featured a program that would speed up the system about double again, by replacing the keyboard handling routine with a better version. There also used to be a way to replace the CPU with a different (Hitachi?) CPU that was a clone, but could be clocked up further via a crystal change. However, since the crystal in the CoCo controlled the video and disk as well as the CPU, changing this could cause unpredicatable (or predictable - it simply wouldn't work!) results.
It's scary what you remember after nearly 15 years!
A long time ago (more than 2 years, less than 5?), when DVD was being hashed out by two different consortiums of manufacturers, why didn't we "step up to the plate" then?
I mean, I remember the talk going on about region encoding way back then, and the possibility of an encryption scheme. I also remember, at the time, of talk that the whole format may just be released as a larger version of a CD-ROM, and talk about how it should only be used to hold data of any type (and not, as we have now, DVD for data, DVD for video, DVD for audio, blah). Maybe I have that last bit wrong (I mean, thinking about Audio CDs and CD-ROMs, there are similar parallels there).
Why didn't we (and the public), stand up for our rights to these consortiums then? The info was on the internet (a little), and in the mass media (papers and magazines)...
Perhaps we need to take this as a lesson - when a new tech is promising, before a product is even released, we should hash it over thoroughly and complainloudly about the parts we don't like, prior to it becoming a product - only to complain about it later (like we should be doing now with nanotech)...
Consider this: What you are saying is that you equate copying with theft. Theft is the deprivation of goods or services from one individual by another. Copying something deprives no one of goods or services.
You could get me on trespassing - but I doubt invasion of privacy is a law (though I could be wrong - you could, however, sue me for emotional damages).
You see, the problem is with the law - the law was rewritten to make copying an article equivalent to theft. It is a case of a common law (that is, a law which harms the individual - theft in this case - murder is another) being rewritten as a statutory law, which is a law covering something that doesn't harm an individual (be that a person or a company), but rather causes a potential harm, or a monetary harm (jay-walking laws are statutory laws).
In my point of view, statutory laws are laws that are nothing more than props for our overtly capitalistic, uncommon-sense society, and many should be struck down, or reverted back to thier common law status.
I imagine you not only dislike KM, but you also feel that the WTO is a good thing, right?
If you were able to pick the lock, copy all of my confidential things, didn't leave a trace (except maybe one fingerprint - and only one), and you never used any of the confidential information, then you told me to get better locks, showed me which ones to get, and gave back the copies (or destroyed them in my presence), then yes - I would congratulate you on such a job - because you would deserve it. I would then hire you as a security expert.
Construction - Hah! Never been to a construction site, I take it? Most everyone there has at least a cell phone (some large sites require it, to keep in contact, rather than use handheld radios), and many contractors use laptops. I imagine computers will become more common place on the construction site as things go on, for measuring, leveling, and general overall work for higher quality.
Janitorial Services - Maybe if it was cleaning in a prison or something. Most cleaning crews are hired to clean - tada! - office buildings. We all know that there aren't many computers in office buildings...
Assembly Lines - You have got to be joking! Given all of the automation and robotics used in assembly line, you are trying to convince me there aren't any computers or cell phones around?
The fact is, KM is screwed as far as jobs are concerned. Almost every job requires access to a computer or a cell phone of some type. Some places won't even hire you (like telemarketing) if you don't have at least a little computer experience.
I am not saying that what KM did shouldn't be punished - but I think he already HAS been punished by his near 5 YEARS in prison (with no computer contact). I guess the only way he could get a job would be if he worked on a Quaker farm - oops, I forgot - even some of those people are using technology like cell phones and PC's...
Have you been to a fucking Circle-K or 7-Eleven lately? They ALL have PC's in them. I don't know of one single place that I shop at or rent from that DOESN'T have a PC somewhere.
Hell, go to a fucking construction site - chances are there will be a laptop somewhere around the contractor's truck. Talk to some truck drivers - ask them if they know anyone who is using a laptop "on the road".
KM is screwed in this regard. It doesn't really matter what the terms of his release say, or how we interpret them. It only matters how his parole officer and the court interprets them (and seeing how they wouldn't even let him have a WALKMAN in prison to listen to some tunes, I highly DOUBT that they will interpret the meaning of computers as being only a PERSONAL COMPUTER).
OK - if you read my directions, the first part is heating the oil (just like you would in a frying pan on the stove). After removing the plate (which will be VERY hot) with the oil on it, you break the egg onto the plate - it will immediately start to cook (on the bottom side). You then need to break the yolk before microwaving it further (to cook the side facing up), because the yolk has a "skin" on it (which is why it stays separate from the white), and if you didn't break it, the skin would trap the steam in the yolk, and it would burst, causing a mess. A tent of paper should be used to contain any further splattering (from the oil, or anything else - remember, it is an egg being cooked).
You are right - an unbroken egg in a microwave will cause an explosion - and a large mess. But if you notice, number 14 deals with frying an egg - not hard-boiling it (which I don't think is possible in a microwave - but it may be. Hey! New experiment!). I would imagine that if you placed an unbroken egg in a fire, you might have the same results. Perhaps if you poked a hole in the end of the egg, and sat it upright in a tray of salt?
Your other experiments with microwave ovens (the grape and CD) are interesting. I have tried the CD one (to get rid of an MSN disk, made a coaster), but the grape one is new to me - I will have to try that.
BTW - ever did the burning match plasma experiment?
I like the license - it is simple, and to the point (whereas the GPL and LGPL are VERY hard to read, but read it enough times, and you get it eventually). However, I found one problem (which is also hinted at by a previous poster in this thread):
You consistantly use the term "software" in the license. What do you mean by software? The binaries, or the source code? The "preamble" to the license states:
Our software refers to the work covered by this license
I think that if you changed the preamble to something like:
Our software (both source and executable format) refers to the work covered by this license
Then it would be clear what was meant by software. Your license does talk about the source, but it only seems to apply if the user received the source - ie, it seems like I could write a piece a software, and only distribute the binary under this license, and nobody could get the source code, unless I released the source code as well when I distributed the work.
If "software" was defined as being both the source and the binary, it would be clearer.
I have eaten a TON of TV dinners in my life. One thing I have noticed in the course of heating these dinners in the microwave, are the following:
1. Most microwave ovens are in the 800-1000 watt range. Depending on where the microwave is on the scale, times may need to be adjusted up or down by a half minute or so. 2. Never heed the directions on a TV dinner - most of the time, they are WRONG. 3. Always use high - despite what the dinner says, doing shit on medium doesn't work - use high, and nuke for HALF the time. 4. Banquent and Swanson TV dinners works the same - for standard 14 oz size, leave all plastic wrap on, no holes, nothing, and nuke for 4.5 to 5 minutes, turning once - do not let sit, eat immediately. 5. For Hungry-Man style dinners, all wrap on, 5 minutes, turn, 5 minutes. 6. Swanson Pot Pies - put in a bowl to catch drips, poke holes in top - nuke 4.5 to 5 minutes. 7. Marie Callendar Pot Pies - leave in box - do not open box. Nuke 5 minutes (for small ones), 10 minutes for large sizes. 8. Do not nuke pizza - it sucks. Use the damn oven. 9. Leftovers - most can be cooked in two minutes, but depending on the amount of food, may need longer. Plastic wrap helps keep in steam (esp for stuffing). Stirring after heating is a good idea. 10. Do NOT reheat biscuits for more than 15-30 seconds on high (unless you like hard biscuits). 11. Bacon - high for 1 minute per slice. 12. Do not reheat pre-made burgers (ala Bugerking) with mayo on them - they suck. 13. Do not heat non-microwavable french-fries. 14. It is possible to fry an egg in the microwave - here's how: Take a saucer, and grease it with vegetable oil. Heat it in the microwave on high for 1 minute. Carefully remove and break an egg on it. Bust the yolk. Heat on high for 1-2 minutes, until done. You might want to cover with a tent of paper.
That is all I can think of. If you want more tips, reply to this message.
Slashdot Mirror
An educated man is a free man. Adults and children should be able to view what they want, when they want - in order to educate themselves to become more free. It doesn't matter if it is porn, the Constitution, the Bible, a work on the occult, or the back of a gum wrapper - free men have the right to free information, not information cloaked to "protect us" - protect us from what? The ability to see hidden agendas?
I have read most of the threads on this article, and two stood out in my mind, both negative - 1) That a LG spinoff would deteriorate rather quickly because of lack of material, and 2) That the X-Files was boring, because of material that was "too out-there"...
My response on both of these - Do any of you troll the web? I mean, so many times I come across article, rants and various other discussions about how the web is so commercialized and how there is nothing interesting on it, only to shake my head knowing these people are wrong. With a few search engines and some clicks, I have found all manner of strange things - as long as people can publish their own stuff, there will always be fun pages out there...
Here is one - which, strangely enough, I found while trolling Ebay for something or another:
http://table.jps.net/~einc/index.html
It is called the Constant Society - I can't figure out if the guy who wrote this page believes this stuff, what portion is real and fake, or whether it is all a joke (probably the last). At any rate, I think this has to be one of the stranger pages. The material on this site alone could last the LG a season, if tweaked right.
And this is only one site - keelynet and eskimo could last a few seasons (both LG and XF), and there are many more sites out there. Considering what has been done on the X-Files, I can't believe the amount of stuff that hasn't been covered in that show (and if you read a fair amount of occult and high strangeness material, you know what I mean).
If done right, there is a lot of material to be covered - heck, pull some stories based on stuff from Weekly World News (like the Ape-Man story that recently ran - what was funny about that story - it is TRUE. One of the few true stories they run every now and then, I had previously watched on TV a show detailing the life and times behind that strange chimpanzee, with video of the animal walking upright and such - makes me want to go out to that zoo in Texas to see for myself!)...
She goes to some no-name search engine, and types in "white house" -- and promptly gets directed to www.whitehouse.com. A hardcore (whatever that means) porn site.
You are presupposing here: a) That when you do a search on a search engine, it automatically redirects you to the page, and b) That the text that a search engine returns includes no "summary" of the main page.
Every search engine I have used had a summary, and required the user to click on a link to go to that page. Generally (not always), the summary includes enough information for you to determine if the site is a sex site or the real thing. If you click on the link, and are horrified by a sex site, you weren't paying attention - and should rightfully be shaken.
have you tried to have sex in the middle of your public library lately?
Not lately...hmm...
Of course, my alternative is to expose them to pedophiles. What would you suggest I do?
Whooaa! Hold on here, fella! Where did we go from viewing a sex site in the library to pedophiles? Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who looks at a sex site in the library is a pedophile? I didn't see any wording to that effect, but I get a strong hint for some reason...
I'll tell you what I would do, especially if I'm not very bright
And here is the exact problem - too many people are not bright. I would go so far as to say that many people are quite dim when it comes to their rights as human beings and adults, the issues surrounding this whole debate, the agendas that are being pushed, and the technology surrounding all this. I bet if we had a more INFORMED and EDUCATED populace, this so-called "problem" wouldn't be an issue.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should have no moral standards?
No, I am suggesting that we should have logical moral standards. I mean, not many care about the amount of violence shown on television, games and the internet, but as soon as a naked person walks by, all hell breaks loose! Over what? Some skin? We can show (in slow motion) a bullet penetrating a body, with accompaning gore, and no one cares. Show a penis entering a woman's vagina: OH MY GAWD!
Why don't we talk openly with our kids about sex? Why do we think that our kids won't ever try any of the stuff that some consider "aberrant" - even when they reach adulthood? Many will try strange things later in life, just because the missionary position gets BORING! But we never talk about these acts. We don't dare discuss even stranger behaviors - to the point where we don't have a clue as to WHY people do them! We can't even speculate - because we don't talk!
The answer to this issue is that we should talk, openly and freely. We should educate and inform all those involved, both adults and children. Perhaps with that will we begin down the road to sanity on this issue...
You state: /. readers would agree that children should be able to view something that goes against their parents or the publics beliefs. /. readers!
Very few
Consider me one of those
I say anyone with a modicum of brains should encourage both children and adults to question everything said/posed/taught to them, lest we all become a herd of mindless drones spouting corporate/religious/government dogma!
Question "authority", for authority may be wrong...
Then there's LDS. Nevermind the people who don't have a sober friend guide them while they trip and end up killing themself in some dumb way or another, screwing with your brain chemistry has nasty effects like flashbacks later in life. Whee!
Yeah, those damn Mormons can fuck you life up everytime you interact wit... oh...waitaminute...you meant LSD!
Relax - laugh - it's sarcasm...
Heh - you must've been writing that just as soon as I posted my reply in the thread about the very same thing. Interesting tech, that's for sure!
OK - not having any access to simulation software or anything (nor any education in the geometry of the thing), I kinda suspected there might be an issue.
However, I still think there should be a shape that has 3 focus points - maybe. Or at least a series of shapes - any ideas?
Here is a link that better describes the process - this seems right:
t /ascott.htm
http://www.dig.bris.ac.uk/teaching/o_a_hf/ascot
Essentially what I said previously, except multiple bullets in the barrel, each seperated by a charge. The charges are electronically controlled (set off), the heat of the explosion expands the bullet behind it, keeping the heat from igniting the charges behind the next bullet. Rate of fire determined by barrel cooling, and rate at which bullets leave barrel.
Better trust the software/hardware behind these devices - can you imagine what would happen if the wrong bullet was fired out of order (Oops! Where did my hand go!)...
Here are some links:
p ://www.metalstorm-ltd.com/ .odwyer-smartgun.com/entry.html
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9706/28/super.gun/
htt
http://www
From what I can tell, all this seems to be is an electronic firing system (think of a multi-barreled gun, with a bullet in each barrel, and each bullet wired to fire - hence no moving parts, high rate of fire - but not many bullets to fire).
Personally, I think a machine gun would be better, as these devices seem to make you reload after only a few shots (4-6 in the handgun case, maybe 50 or so in the larger versions). In the case of a handgun, it might make a little sense - but for anything where you want to "hose" something for a little while, well...
Heh! I see someone prior to me had a similar idea - I also have an idea on how to make the "wire" work at longer distances, as well as to connect the gates...
Imagine a chain - each link on the chain is one of these ellipse rings, perpendicular to each other, with the ring surrounding the focal points (so that the rings don't actually touch, but merely enclose the focal points). Now, when an atom is placed at the focus, and the image appears at the other focus, the next link will carry it one (albeit with further degradation, I would suppose).
Imagine the links to be the gate inputs/outputs and you can see how this could be used.
As far as a NOT gate is concerned, maybe some priciple of phase canceling waves could be used here - I am not a physicist, and especially not a quantum physicist, but I am thinking that if you took the cardoid shape gate, and put a particle that had a 180 phase inverted wave symmetry in one lobe, then the presence or absence of a particle in the other lobe (with opposite symmetry), would cause the image to appear/disappear on the other end, creating a NOT'ed-style output...
Maybe...
For the chain thing to work - we have to learn to manipulate these atoms in 3D (rather than work on a 2D atomic surface)...
OK, here is my contribution to this idea - I have a thought on how to make an AND gate:
These devices rely on what appears to be a weird focusing effect of the wave-like behavior of atoms. In theory, if you can do it with wave-guides, maybe you can do it with nano.
Right now, they have a "straight" style wave guide - the wave at one end focusing and creating an image at the other end of the ring. What if you made, instead of a ring shape, a cardoid (I think that is right) shape - in other words, think of a "rounded bottom" heart.
If done right, maybe an atom placed at one of the lobes of the heart would be too weak to "focus" strongly at the bottom of the heart, but place one in each lobe, and it would form a good and solid image at the bottom (due to the images overlapping?).
A slightly modified form of this same AND gate might be able to produce an OR style gate (just get it to be able to take one of the two inputs at the lobes and focus it properly).
I am not sure how you would be able to do a NOT gate - would such a gate even be possible (I am imagining the wave nature of the particles - if the particle isn't there, how do you get another in a different area to appear?)...
Can a cardoid shape be made (did they use a ring because the configuration was stable)?
Amplifiers for the "signals" will also have to be made (how do you build a wave amplifier? Some kind of resonance thing?)...
I didn't think so, either (that it used photogrammetry), but I wanted to present the info on it so that people would know about it.
The software developed for this device may be new, but getting depth information from a greyscale image isn't - such techniques are also discussed in cartography textbooks, as well were used in the 3D imaging of the "face" on Mars (along with photogrammetry, I believe, since they had two different images as well - however, I think greyscale extraction was more useful, since the two images were taken at different times of "day").
Regarding using beams of light and special software - I wonder if you could build your own rig using a scanned laser, a high quality video camera, and some digitizing software? Set the object on a turntable, set it rotating, and scan the laser in a vertical "stripe" across the surface. Do a real-time video capture, strip out the individual frames, then do the greyscale analysis on those frames, along the line of the laser path. The various values could then be used to calculate "depth" values along the surface of a cylinder, say (or, have some way to keep track of the angle of the object on the turntable - maybe a potentiometer hooked to a joystick port, or a mouse wheel sensor, something like that - then use that to calculate the radian offset around the Y axis).
This device seems way overpriced for what it does - it should be able to be done much cheaper. Maybe I should break out a Quickcam, an old recordplayer, a key chain laser pointer, and some duct tape - and see what happens!
Give these experiments a TRY! Even if they AREN'T ball lightning, what you will see will be worth it. Just a simple lit match stuck in a pink eraser in a microwave set on high for a minute, the effects are AMAZING. Of course, if you happen to hate the smell of ozone, then you may not like it...
The method usually used to generate 3D models from multiple photos is called photogrammetry - and is used in aerial imaging to extract elevation from multiple shots of terrain. It is explained in just about any good cartography textbook.
Essentially, for consumer use, the camera is flipped horizontal with the subject in front of it. Everything proceeds according to Zagadka's description, pretty much.
Incidentally, there is an old copy of Byte magazine, from the late 1970's describing how to extract the 3D information from multiple shots, with included BASIC code to calculate the 3D vertices from the 2D inputs. Pretty cool - crazy though that only NOW are we actually using this at the consumer level, even though an article in a well known computer magazine has languished for nigh 20 years!
The whole issue of legal ramifications not withstanding (you being in Norway, this being a US case, etc):
Did you at any point stop and think what would happen if you released the code into the public sphere?
Many times, those who change/shake up the world do so without meaning to do it, others do. Which camp do you fall into, and why?
You know, this is one thing that has bothered me (and I guess, could even be considered about the originals):
Something like the Constitution (and the DOI), the concepts are very important, but what is to stop anyone with a digital copy of changing certain words and such to match thier own agenda (say over a period of several decades)? Indeed, who is to say the paper copy of the Constitution is the true original?
We not only need a way of protecting the information from bit rot, we also need to remember to implement the ways (which exist!) to protect these documents from alteration!
Or am I being overly paranoid?
Doublespeed POKE:
CoCo 1 (some models) and 2 - POKE 65495,0
CoCo 3 - Poke 65497,0
To shift down:
CoCo 1 (some models) and 2 - POKE 65494,0
CoCo 3 - Poke 65496,0
Remember to clock down when writing to disk or tape, then back up...
BTW - from what I remember, in one of the last issues of Rainbow Magazine (the ones that were printed on newsprint, and looked like a newspaper), there was featured a program that would speed up the system about double again, by replacing the keyboard handling routine with a better version. There also used to be a way to replace the CPU with a different (Hitachi?) CPU that was a clone, but could be clocked up further via a crystal change. However, since the crystal in the CoCo controlled the video and disk as well as the CPU, changing this could cause unpredicatable (or predictable - it simply wouldn't work!) results.
It's scary what you remember after nearly 15 years!
A long time ago (more than 2 years, less than 5?), when DVD was being hashed out by two different consortiums of manufacturers, why didn't we "step up to the plate" then?
I mean, I remember the talk going on about region encoding way back then, and the possibility of an encryption scheme. I also remember, at the time, of talk that the whole format may just be released as a larger version of a CD-ROM, and talk about how it should only be used to hold data of any type (and not, as we have now, DVD for data, DVD for video, DVD for audio, blah). Maybe I have that last bit wrong (I mean, thinking about Audio CDs and CD-ROMs, there are similar parallels there).
Why didn't we (and the public), stand up for our rights to these consortiums then? The info was on the internet (a little), and in the mass media (papers and magazines)...
Perhaps we need to take this as a lesson - when a new tech is promising, before a product is even released, we should hash it over thoroughly and complain loudly about the parts we don't like, prior to it becoming a product - only to complain about it later (like we should be doing now with nanotech)...
Well, that is what you would do...
Consider this: What you are saying is that you equate copying with theft. Theft is the deprivation of goods or services from one individual by another. Copying something deprives no one of goods or services.
You could get me on trespassing - but I doubt invasion of privacy is a law (though I could be wrong - you could, however, sue me for emotional damages).
You see, the problem is with the law - the law was rewritten to make copying an article equivalent to theft. It is a case of a common law (that is, a law which harms the individual - theft in this case - murder is another) being rewritten as a statutory law, which is a law covering something that doesn't harm an individual (be that a person or a company), but rather causes a potential harm, or a monetary harm (jay-walking laws are statutory laws).
In my point of view, statutory laws are laws that are nothing more than props for our overtly capitalistic, uncommon-sense society, and many should be struck down, or reverted back to thier common law status.
I imagine you not only dislike KM, but you also feel that the WTO is a good thing, right?
If you were able to pick the lock, copy all of my confidential things, didn't leave a trace (except maybe one fingerprint - and only one), and you never used any of the confidential information, then you told me to get better locks, showed me which ones to get, and gave back the copies (or destroyed them in my presence), then yes - I would congratulate you on such a job - because you would deserve it. I would then hire you as a security expert.
Construction - Hah! Never been to a construction site, I take it? Most everyone there has at least a cell phone (some large sites require it, to keep in contact, rather than use handheld radios), and many contractors use laptops. I imagine computers will become more common place on the construction site as things go on, for measuring, leveling, and general overall work for higher quality.
Janitorial Services - Maybe if it was cleaning in a prison or something. Most cleaning crews are hired to clean - tada! - office buildings. We all know that there aren't many computers in office buildings...
Assembly Lines - You have got to be joking! Given all of the automation and robotics used in assembly line, you are trying to convince me there aren't any computers or cell phones around?
The fact is, KM is screwed as far as jobs are concerned. Almost every job requires access to a computer or a cell phone of some type. Some places won't even hire you (like telemarketing) if you don't have at least a little computer experience.
I am not saying that what KM did shouldn't be punished - but I think he already HAS been punished by his near 5 YEARS in prison (with no computer contact). I guess the only way he could get a job would be if he worked on a Quaker farm - oops, I forgot - even some of those people are using technology like cell phones and PC's...
WAKE UP!
Have you been to a fucking Circle-K or 7-Eleven lately? They ALL have PC's in them. I don't know of one single place that I shop at or rent from that DOESN'T have a PC somewhere.
Hell, go to a fucking construction site - chances are there will be a laptop somewhere around the contractor's truck. Talk to some truck drivers - ask them if they know anyone who is using a laptop "on the road".
KM is screwed in this regard. It doesn't really matter what the terms of his release say, or how we interpret them. It only matters how his parole officer and the court interprets them (and seeing how they wouldn't even let him have a WALKMAN in prison to listen to some tunes, I highly DOUBT that they will interpret the meaning of computers as being only a PERSONAL COMPUTER).
OK - if you read my directions, the first part is heating the oil (just like you would in a frying pan on the stove). After removing the plate (which will be VERY hot) with the oil on it, you break the egg onto the plate - it will immediately start to cook (on the bottom side). You then need to break the yolk before microwaving it further (to cook the side facing up), because the yolk has a "skin" on it (which is why it stays separate from the white), and if you didn't break it, the skin would trap the steam in the yolk, and it would burst, causing a mess. A tent of paper should be used to contain any further splattering (from the oil, or anything else - remember, it is an egg being cooked).
You are right - an unbroken egg in a microwave will cause an explosion - and a large mess. But if you notice, number 14 deals with frying an egg - not hard-boiling it (which I don't think is possible in a microwave - but it may be. Hey! New experiment!). I would imagine that if you placed an unbroken egg in a fire, you might have the same results. Perhaps if you poked a hole in the end of the egg, and sat it upright in a tray of salt?
Your other experiments with microwave ovens (the grape and CD) are interesting. I have tried the CD one (to get rid of an MSN disk, made a coaster), but the grape one is new to me - I will have to try that.
BTW - ever did the burning match plasma experiment?
I like the license - it is simple, and to the point (whereas the GPL and LGPL are VERY hard to read, but read it enough times, and you get it eventually). However, I found one problem (which is also hinted at by a previous poster in this thread):
You consistantly use the term "software" in the license. What do you mean by software? The binaries, or the source code? The "preamble" to the license states:
Our software refers to the work covered by this license
I think that if you changed the preamble to something like:
Our software (both source and executable format) refers to the work covered by this license
Then it would be clear what was meant by software. Your license does talk about the source, but it only seems to apply if the user received the source - ie, it seems like I could write a piece a software, and only distribute the binary under this license, and nobody could get the source code, unless I released the source code as well when I distributed the work.
If "software" was defined as being both the source and the binary, it would be clearer.
I have eaten a TON of TV dinners in my life. One thing I have noticed in the course of heating these dinners in the microwave, are the following:
1. Most microwave ovens are in the 800-1000 watt range. Depending on where the microwave is on the scale, times may need to be adjusted up or down by a half minute or so.
2. Never heed the directions on a TV dinner - most of the time, they are WRONG.
3. Always use high - despite what the dinner says, doing shit on medium doesn't work - use high, and nuke for HALF the time.
4. Banquent and Swanson TV dinners works the same - for standard 14 oz size, leave all plastic wrap on, no holes, nothing, and nuke for 4.5 to 5 minutes, turning once - do not let sit, eat immediately.
5. For Hungry-Man style dinners, all wrap on, 5 minutes, turn, 5 minutes.
6. Swanson Pot Pies - put in a bowl to catch drips, poke holes in top - nuke 4.5 to 5 minutes.
7. Marie Callendar Pot Pies - leave in box - do not open box. Nuke 5 minutes (for small ones), 10 minutes for large sizes.
8. Do not nuke pizza - it sucks. Use the damn oven.
9. Leftovers - most can be cooked in two minutes, but depending on the amount of food, may need longer. Plastic wrap helps keep in steam (esp for stuffing). Stirring after heating is a good idea.
10. Do NOT reheat biscuits for more than 15-30 seconds on high (unless you like hard biscuits).
11. Bacon - high for 1 minute per slice.
12. Do not reheat pre-made burgers (ala Bugerking) with mayo on them - they suck.
13. Do not heat non-microwavable french-fries.
14. It is possible to fry an egg in the microwave - here's how: Take a saucer, and grease it with vegetable oil. Heat it in the microwave on high for 1 minute. Carefully remove and break an egg on it. Bust the yolk. Heat on high for 1-2 minutes, until done. You might want to cover with a tent of paper.
That is all I can think of. If you want more tips, reply to this message.