it's ok to impart knowledge that maybe not everyone knows but should
but when you do it with a haughty air of condescension, you don't serve anything except your own ego
i'd like to know what movie the term came from, and i thank you for the lead. but i'm not going to find out, not because i'm not willing to watch all the marx movies, but because you are an asshole. a knowledgeable asshole, but an asshole nonetheless
the purposeful withholding of information, just because you can? c'mon
i'm showing my age, but there was a mod some maniac made over fifteen years ago of id's original doom fps
you were let loose in a level full of monsters, and each monster correlated with a process currently running on your computer. when you shot a monster (with a shotgun, preferably), the process associated with that sprite was terminated as well
brilliant, and insane way to shut down a computer after a hard day of work
then the fail is not the movie maker, but the contemporary thinking of the time. that progress was about interacting with computer files in 3D. like the other disclosure link i have above: people thought we were going to put on VR goggles and gloves and work that way. i blame jaron lanier
i am a film buff. so i knew about the movie swordfish a few months before it came out (from fan sites like aintitcoolnews.com, etc.), and i knew sketchy plot points about the movie, namely that it would be about illicit transfers of illicit funds
i also used to work for a large multinational bank as a programmer. and a few months before swordfish came out, i was developing a system used by the bank for monitoring internal transfers. on a lark, i code named the system in development as "swordfish" as my own personal inside joke. it was never intended to be a more widely known nickname
but in email conversations with my boss, i, um, kept calling it swordfish. oops. my boss wound up raving about the system, to his bosses, to other middle management, to everyone. he started telling everyone who would listen about it because the basic idea behind the project was a sound one and it was important for the bank. unfortunately, he kept calling it "swordfish," and the name stuck and went into general use
awareness of the swordfish project just happened to peak when the movie came out. to widespread media coverage and exposure and advertising. and the basic details about a hacker breaking into a financial computer system to transfer funds became common knowledge, even to people who didn't see the movie. and at the same time, here was my boss making an internal push to distribute this program to wider use for testing, and trying to drum up support for it amongst the higher ranking middle management... and it was called swordfish
he stopped raving about the program, and my boss got in the habit of shaking his head and smirking every time he saw me
so the plot guys get the technical details wrong sometimes
i am living proof that sometimes the technical guys get the plot points wrong
disclosure: that 3D file system that seemed to suggest that in the future every time someone wanted to open a file, it would be like playing an FPS against demi moore
the net: you access super top secret computer systems by clicking on a tiny pi icon in the corner of a browser session. not exactly security through obscurity:
some people just seem to like disasters, they keep having them. and for some reason, i can't understand, certain Americans, socialists and fascists, they want to help them, to keep them in a constant state of disaster
experts-exchange doesn't do any "who are you?" tricks: different pages depending on search engine or real person. google would hammer their rankings for that abusiveness, they can't get away with that
no, instead, they just bury what you are looking for at the bottom of the page, under 50 yards of cruft. try it out if you don't believe me: search for seomthing that brings up experts-exchange. they have "reply shaded out, pay now" at top...then tons of cruft...then the actual replies at the bottom of the page. i feel sorry for those who actually paid those trolls cash, when the answer they were searching for was just at the bottom of the page
but far better, for getting good results, is to just append "site:stackoverflow.com" to whatever you search for on google code related
No that's not correct. You don't aid other people in disasters. They have to learn to be self-reliant. If you aid people in disasters, they will come to expect aid and cease to have their own disaster preparedness. I as a real American won't have any of this socialist disaster welfare. Altruism is evil incarnate.
I know this basically means that the USAF is acting like a glorified FedEx: expediting delivery of a critically needed resource. And I'm glad for that, a China Syndrome reactor accident would make Chernobyl look like Child's play (although, it's Japan, so it would be an Argentina Syndrome reactor accident).
But I couldn't get the image out of my mind of Slim Pickens riding a refridgerator out of a bomber's bay doors over Tokyo while whooping it up.
hawaii only had a 7 foot roll, was spared anything major, so there probably won't be any problems. however, the shape of the seafloor and harbors can magnify these kind of waves, so if you have any family on the west coast, tell them to get to high ground right now, if they haven't already done so
but you, you don't have a point. you have another subject matter. it doesn't say anything material about my hypothesis. you don't refute it. you don't support it. you just babble pointlessly about a subject that is not material
do you see how this guy addressed my point? do you see how you don't?
you have confronted me with facts. i agree with every fact you've told me. that's not the point
here, i'll confront you with a fact: the sky is blue
you would rightfully respond that this has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. at which point, according to your playbook, i can now call you a troll
i'm not doubting your knowledge, i am doubting your social ability to stay within the scope of a given topic
i see where you are coming from with the exponential distribution. that the colossal titanic star systems are few, and then as you go to smaller self-contained gravitational systems, you get more and more objects/ systems, exponentially increasing in number, down to, well, space dust i guess. i was thinking that since we did see some brown dwarfs and dark systems, that we see a "false" gaussian distribution: that the real gaussian distribution is a much larger hump that we are only seeing the leading edge of
either way, the point is the same: there is a hidden portion of smaller systems/ objects we simply don't see,, and this set of smaller objects/ systems is enormously huge. but we don't see them, simply because they never ignited and became visible
i'm through with you. for some reason you believe in talking about completely unrelated tangential topics. other people posting here are able to grasp my point rather simply and address it. but you've got some sort of obtuse mental inability to see a simple point before you and focus on that simple point
that has nothing to do with this concept. its like saying plate tectonics influences boulder size in a creek bed. of course, plate tectonics raised the mountains that made the creek, but the boulders in that creek are dictated by wind, water, erosion, the composition of rocks in the area, etc. all you have is a "far out man, everything is connected" platitude, and nothing at all to say about the mass of planetary systems
take a count of the largest stars. then just the large stars. the medium sized... you are increasing in number, right? you are at the front of a gaussian curve. now the numbers start falling as you get smaller and smaller. you have a curve with a rapid drop off on the smaller side. my hypothesis is simply that this is artificial because we simply can't see the dimmer and totally dark systems out there
that you are only looking at the visible top edge of a much larger gaussian curve of star/ planetary system size, where non-ignited stars (i know, legalistically those are not called stars, but you get my point despite your legalisms) make up a large unseen portion of the curve. that what we see is only the edge of a much larger gaussian distribution. it is a function of what is visible versus what is true, and the disconnect between these two simply because smaller systems are unignited, but still sitting out there, dark and cold
i am not describing any of those things. i understand the debate about matter and dark matter and other exotic things we can't see in the universe, and a number of exotic possibilities about where "missing" matter might or might not exist
but i am talking about a more mundane, simplistic issue about star formation and the possibility of a huge amount of "failed" star systems out there
"If it didn't ignite, it's not a star - then technically it doesn't even belong on the chart of star sizes."
you are just being legalistic, not making a valid statement which counteracts what i am saying. plus you are talking about galaxies... huh? this is phenomena on a vastly different scale than that is star and planetary system formation
the simple truth is, whenever a star/ planetary system forms, you are talking about a certain amount of mass in the region that serves as a starting point. after some time, you have a central gravitational focus, with various objects in orbit. whether or not one or two or more of those objects ignite, is simply a function of mass. and therefore, it is entirely reasonable and plausible to hypothesize that there exists a whole class of systems out there that, simply because nothing ignited, we aren't aware of them. then it is equally valid to say that there may be vastly more of such brown and dark systems than systems we can see, simply as a function of random chance and the distribution of possible amounts of mass in a region where gravity started acting and leading us down the path towards star/ planetary system
you've brought nothing but a bunch of legalistic and off topic issues, you haven't refuted or even touched what i am saying
right. but your problem is you are trying to make sense. i am not proposing something someone would do for any rational reason other than fancy. or, as a learning lesson. the concrete canoe competition you cite has no valid real world value save teaching, right? i am saying build an airplane out of concrete, just for the sake of trying, and therefore learning
we look up at the night sky and see only the bight stars, and assume everything else is vacuum. what if there is a relationship on the order of 100 invisible brown dwarf/ orphan jupiter planetary systems for every regular star system? or 1,000/1 or 10,000/1 or 100,000/1 or more?
i bet as we get better at trying to find exoplanets, we also find a lot of dead dark planetary systems out there. gravitationally bound, but completely without light. a jupiter, just sitting there all alone in the void, with its assemblage of moons/ planets, frozen, and without any light... but not rare at all, all over the place in fact and much more numerous than familiar ignited and main sequence star systems
i mean, star creation should assume a gaussian distribution in terms of star size, right? doesn't that just make simple entropic sense? well look at the wide base of that gaussian curve, below the minimum size needed for ignition: its huge! in overall mass and in number. so if the size spread of star systems is truly gaussian, then there should be orders of magnitude more dark systems out there than ignited systems. i bet we find legions of these systems, or, rather infer legions of them, and just never know for sure, because, of course, they are pitch dark and energetically completely dead
occlusion of other star systems would be the only way to see them. and even then, since they are so small and so far away, and occlusion would be once and probably not ever again, they would be much harder to find than exoplanets, unless they were close to our solar system. they would just become noise in the number of photons hitting earth
Slashdot Mirror
hey, hey, hey, no interference
i'm trying to assassinate an ego
it's ok to impart knowledge that maybe not everyone knows but should
but when you do it with a haughty air of condescension, you don't serve anything except your own ego
i'd like to know what movie the term came from, and i thank you for the lead. but i'm not going to find out, not because i'm not willing to watch all the marx movies, but because you are an asshole. a knowledgeable asshole, but an asshole nonetheless
the purposeful withholding of information, just because you can? c'mon
LOL
i'm showing my age, but there was a mod some maniac made over fifteen years ago of id's original doom fps
you were let loose in a level full of monsters, and each monster correlated with a process currently running on your computer. when you shot a monster (with a shotgun, preferably), the process associated with that sprite was terminated as well
brilliant, and insane way to shut down a computer after a hard day of work
completely egregious use of technology... to construct an endearing story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stuyz1Kkzn0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZazTtaW_ZAo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in_ZVmckrmU
completely forgotten, critically panned early 80s film called "electric dreams". complete with an unknown group called culture club on the soundtrack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OLEAeky8is
just, you know, your typical story of a PC that goes insane and falls in love with the girl upstairs
i loved that weird freakin movie
ok, it's real, thanks
then the fail is not the movie maker, but the contemporary thinking of the time. that progress was about interacting with computer files in 3D. like the other disclosure link i have above: people thought we were going to put on VR goggles and gloves and work that way. i blame jaron lanier
i am a film buff. so i knew about the movie swordfish a few months before it came out (from fan sites like aintitcoolnews.com, etc.), and i knew sketchy plot points about the movie, namely that it would be about illicit transfers of illicit funds
i also used to work for a large multinational bank as a programmer. and a few months before swordfish came out, i was developing a system used by the bank for monitoring internal transfers. on a lark, i code named the system in development as "swordfish" as my own personal inside joke. it was never intended to be a more widely known nickname
but in email conversations with my boss, i, um, kept calling it swordfish. oops. my boss wound up raving about the system, to his bosses, to other middle management, to everyone. he started telling everyone who would listen about it because the basic idea behind the project was a sound one and it was important for the bank. unfortunately, he kept calling it "swordfish," and the name stuck and went into general use
awareness of the swordfish project just happened to peak when the movie came out. to widespread media coverage and exposure and advertising. and the basic details about a hacker breaking into a financial computer system to transfer funds became common knowledge, even to people who didn't see the movie. and at the same time, here was my boss making an internal push to distribute this program to wider use for testing, and trying to drum up support for it amongst the higher ranking middle management... and it was called swordfish
he stopped raving about the program, and my boss got in the habit of shaking his head and smirking every time he saw me
so the plot guys get the technical details wrong sometimes
i am living proof that sometimes the technical guys get the plot points wrong
jurassic park: the little girl going "it's a unix system, i know this"... and then she's flying over computer files, or something. huh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFUlAQZB9Ng
disclosure: that 3D file system that seemed to suggest that in the future every time someone wanted to open a file, it would be like playing an FPS against demi moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFkyV7d5t8o
the net: you access super top secret computer systems by clicking on a tiny pi icon in the corner of a browser session. not exactly security through obscurity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYO-5Y2L0jg
some people just seem to like disasters, they keep having them. and for some reason, i can't understand, certain Americans, socialists and fascists, they want to help them, to keep them in a constant state of disaster
experts-exchange doesn't do any "who are you?" tricks: different pages depending on search engine or real person. google would hammer their rankings for that abusiveness, they can't get away with that
no, instead, they just bury what you are looking for at the bottom of the page, under 50 yards of cruft. try it out if you don't believe me: search for seomthing that brings up experts-exchange. they have "reply shaded out, pay now" at top...then tons of cruft...then the actual replies at the bottom of the page. i feel sorry for those who actually paid those trolls cash, when the answer they were searching for was just at the bottom of the page
but far better, for getting good results, is to just append "site:stackoverflow.com" to whatever you search for on google code related
No that's not correct. You don't aid other people in disasters. They have to learn to be self-reliant. If you aid people in disasters, they will come to expect aid and cease to have their own disaster preparedness. I as a real American won't have any of this socialist disaster welfare. Altruism is evil incarnate.
</sarcasm>
I know this basically means that the USAF is acting like a glorified FedEx: expediting delivery of a critically needed resource. And I'm glad for that, a China Syndrome reactor accident would make Chernobyl look like Child's play (although, it's Japan, so it would be an Argentina Syndrome reactor accident).
But I couldn't get the image out of my mind of Slim Pickens riding a refridgerator out of a bomber's bay doors over Tokyo while whooping it up.
hawaii only had a 7 foot roll, was spared anything major, so there probably won't be any problems. however, the shape of the seafloor and harbors can magnify these kind of waves, so if you have any family on the west coast, tell them to get to high ground right now, if they haven't already done so
you need to work on your communication and reasoning skills
you didn't. you babbled about galaxies. tangential topic. you're daft man
look, here is an example of successfully challenging my words and making a better point than me:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2031350&cid=35445050
i replied he had a fair point, because he does
but you, you don't have a point. you have another subject matter. it doesn't say anything material about my hypothesis. you don't refute it. you don't support it. you just babble pointlessly about a subject that is not material
do you see how this guy addressed my point? do you see how you don't?
you have confronted me with facts. i agree with every fact you've told me. that's not the point
here, i'll confront you with a fact: the sky is blue
you would rightfully respond that this has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. at which point, according to your playbook, i can now call you a troll
i'm not doubting your knowledge, i am doubting your social ability to stay within the scope of a given topic
i see where you are coming from with the exponential distribution. that the colossal titanic star systems are few, and then as you go to smaller self-contained gravitational systems, you get more and more objects/ systems, exponentially increasing in number, down to, well, space dust i guess. i was thinking that since we did see some brown dwarfs and dark systems, that we see a "false" gaussian distribution: that the real gaussian distribution is a much larger hump that we are only seeing the leading edge of
either way, the point is the same: there is a hidden portion of smaller systems/ objects we simply don't see,, and this set of smaller objects/ systems is enormously huge. but we don't see them, simply because they never ignited and became visible
baDUMP *ching*
i'm through with you. for some reason you believe in talking about completely unrelated tangential topics. other people posting here are able to grasp my point rather simply and address it. but you've got some sort of obtuse mental inability to see a simple point before you and focus on that simple point
that has nothing to do with this concept. its like saying plate tectonics influences boulder size in a creek bed. of course, plate tectonics raised the mountains that made the creek, but the boulders in that creek are dictated by wind, water, erosion, the composition of rocks in the area, etc. all you have is a "far out man, everything is connected" platitude, and nothing at all to say about the mass of planetary systems
take a count of the largest stars. then just the large stars. the medium sized... you are increasing in number, right? you are at the front of a gaussian curve. now the numbers start falling as you get smaller and smaller. you have a curve with a rapid drop off on the smaller side. my hypothesis is simply that this is artificial because we simply can't see the dimmer and totally dark systems out there
that you are only looking at the visible top edge of a much larger gaussian curve of star/ planetary system size, where non-ignited stars (i know, legalistically those are not called stars, but you get my point despite your legalisms) make up a large unseen portion of the curve. that what we see is only the edge of a much larger gaussian distribution. it is a function of what is visible versus what is true, and the disconnect between these two simply because smaller systems are unignited, but still sitting out there, dark and cold
i am not describing any of those things. i understand the debate about matter and dark matter and other exotic things we can't see in the universe, and a number of exotic possibilities about where "missing" matter might or might not exist
but i am talking about a more mundane, simplistic issue about star formation and the possibility of a huge amount of "failed" star systems out there
"If it didn't ignite, it's not a star - then technically it doesn't even belong on the chart of star sizes."
you are just being legalistic, not making a valid statement which counteracts what i am saying. plus you are talking about galaxies... huh? this is phenomena on a vastly different scale than that is star and planetary system formation
the simple truth is, whenever a star/ planetary system forms, you are talking about a certain amount of mass in the region that serves as a starting point. after some time, you have a central gravitational focus, with various objects in orbit. whether or not one or two or more of those objects ignite, is simply a function of mass. and therefore, it is entirely reasonable and plausible to hypothesize that there exists a whole class of systems out there that, simply because nothing ignited, we aren't aware of them. then it is equally valid to say that there may be vastly more of such brown and dark systems than systems we can see, simply as a function of random chance and the distribution of possible amounts of mass in a region where gravity started acting and leading us down the path towards star/ planetary system
you've brought nothing but a bunch of legalistic and off topic issues, you haven't refuted or even touched what i am saying
right. but your problem is you are trying to make sense. i am not proposing something someone would do for any rational reason other than fancy. or, as a learning lesson. the concrete canoe competition you cite has no valid real world value save teaching, right? i am saying build an airplane out of concrete, just for the sake of trying, and therefore learning
LOL. the moment you stop moving... slurp
we look up at the night sky and see only the bight stars, and assume everything else is vacuum. what if there is a relationship on the order of 100 invisible brown dwarf/ orphan jupiter planetary systems for every regular star system? or 1,000/1 or 10,000/1 or 100,000/1 or more?
i bet as we get better at trying to find exoplanets, we also find a lot of dead dark planetary systems out there. gravitationally bound, but completely without light. a jupiter, just sitting there all alone in the void, with its assemblage of moons/ planets, frozen, and without any light... but not rare at all, all over the place in fact and much more numerous than familiar ignited and main sequence star systems
i mean, star creation should assume a gaussian distribution in terms of star size, right? doesn't that just make simple entropic sense? well look at the wide base of that gaussian curve, below the minimum size needed for ignition: its huge! in overall mass and in number. so if the size spread of star systems is truly gaussian, then there should be orders of magnitude more dark systems out there than ignited systems. i bet we find legions of these systems, or, rather infer legions of them, and just never know for sure, because, of course, they are pitch dark and energetically completely dead
occlusion of other star systems would be the only way to see them. and even then, since they are so small and so far away, and occlusion would be once and probably not ever again, they would be much harder to find than exoplanets, unless they were close to our solar system. they would just become noise in the number of photons hitting earth
they already use it
http://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+fiber+aircraft
but i'm talking about building an airplane out of something absolutely insane, impractical and impossible at face value. like cast iron. or concrete