What this boils down to is that the Australian gov't wants to "cybersquat" on the.com.au domain. If you think about it, what they want to do is no different than what most cybersquatters want to do (get a good domain and sell it to the first person that offers a good price). Actually, they're "supersquatting" a whole set of possible domains:).
It would be a very Bad Thing if the Australian gov't is able to wrest control of the domain away from Robert Elz because it would set a nasty precedence for future possible litigation. It basically would say that people with established RL organization names have an exclusive right to online domains that resemble those organization names. It would also place the administration of domain names in the hands of the government, setting the stage for a 100% gov't owned and operated internet.
Would
you let an 11 year old run around in the worlds biggest porn shop with people who regularly abduct children and plenty of other nasty things? Of course not... the internet is the same thing.
By your logic the internet = "the world's biggest porn shop" because it contains a large repository of porn. Assuming this logic is correct, the world in general is an even bigger porn shop because it contains the internet, PPV channels and Playboy et al. By your reasoning, you should therefore not let your children out of the house without special glasses and earmuffs that censor the outside world.
You missed the whole point of my post. What I meant was that it is known that radio-frequency radiation can cause tumors/cancer. The "shields" being patented block radio-frequency radiation, and therefore reduce the risk of tumors/cancer. This is all independant of the issue of whether or not cell phones cause tumors/cancer... or even whether or not they radiate anything at all.
It does, however, mean that you can't clain[sic] in the patent application that the device might prevent brain tumors.
They claim that it can block radio frequency radiation, which can cause tumors/cancer, therefore reducing the risk of tumors/cancer. They do not claim to be reducing cancer (not*) caused by cell phones.
*or so they hope... nobody can really extrapolate anything solid from the current research data.
You totally missed the whole point of what I was saying. I said it is your choice, but I'm sure that if they thought about it, many people would choose to be a little more conscientious(sp?). Anyway, I never advocated actively forcing people to be vegetarian, and being vegetarian is *not* lowering your standards of living. It's simply a matter (quite literally) of taste. Most people wouldn't give a damn if they were vegetarians or not, so long as the food tasted good. I don't really believe in the "common good" sort of theories of self-sacrifice (I agree with objectivists on a lot these types of issues) but I also think that waste and excess due to ignorance is a Bad Thing. If you *want* to waste resources and stuff, then that's your choice (hell, I'm not a vegetarian... my dad's a cowboy), I'm saying that if you're only throwing stuff away due to ignorance then you should think twice. Don't even get me started on the whole issue of donating money to other countries.
Very good points. The "Ostrich technique" also the "Ostrich maneuver" is the belief that sticking your head in the sand and ignoring your surroundings will make the problems go away/cease to exist.
As a rebuttal to 4, I would like to point out that the United States (both government and businesses) deliberately block most 3rd world countries from developing independant industries capable of supporting themselves in the same manner as we are. As you stated, the US looked much the same in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, but it was self-imposed. The difference between what we had back then and what we're doing now is that now all the significant revenue flows back to the US because most of these large industrial companies are US-based. The US is not "creating jobs" to help people, only exploiting low-cost labor and lax working conditions standards. The 3rd world countries we exploit will never become independant of this process (if things remain as they stand now) because the extra profits generated by this low overhead all go out of country.
#5 is a very good point, and normally I would agree but the fact is that in order for people to farm on an industrial (not subsistence) level, they need complex machinery, processing facilities, fertilizers, and steady supply of necessary resources. Therefore industrial-level farming is not feasible in most 3rd world countries outside of near slave labor-like conditions where scores of under/non-paid people do the work of a single machine. Unless we wish to give those countries all the machines/technology they need (and therefore create a competing market... assuming their dictator governments do not just sell the stuff for munitions etc) we can only let them starve or give them food.
#6 (whether or not humans were "made" to be vegetarians) is irrelevant. The fact is that humans can survive very well on a completely non-meat diet. I agree that it is your choice, but the point I was making is that most Americans do not give it a second thought and do not want to be told about how much their choice costs the rest of the world.
The only reason that the west has become morally degenerate as you state is because people listen to sayings like that. Scientists who develop technologies without regard to the social impact it may have follow your line of reasoning and deliberately remain ignorant of the potentials of their technologies because they can't be bothered. The masses ultimately allow the use of the technology, but remain deliberately ignorant of the issues in order to reserve the right of moral indignation (they never told us smoking was bad/addicting so it's not my fault etc). The US is a prime example of the ostrich technique. Our economy is based on the suffering of many underdeveloped countries, yet most US citizens are vehemently opposed the exploitation of impoverished people. By deliberately remaining ignorant of the facts, people can claim the moral high ground--and still get cheap Nikes. If the US were to become vegetarian, there would be more than enough food for everyone on the planet (we supply more than enough grain for domestic and foreign markets, and we feed 80% of our grain to livestock, which take more than 1,000,000 times the resources to produce, pound per pound, than vegetables). But we can't be expected to give up our hamburgers and... SPAM! And besides, nobody actually "knows" this, so it's ok.
The only way technology/progress sees immoral applications is when people choose to remain ignorant of the realities.
I remember reading somewhere that NASA considers 10 years to be the upper age limit of installation reliability (re: structures in orbit). I wonder what will happen if it takes them 10 years to make the ISS fully operational? Will they have to start replacing the original modules as they approach the end of their reliable operational age? It seems to me that it is highly likely that the ISS will *always* be in a state of construction... kinda like a bad website.
on what you're using the machine for. I've got a working 486DX2/66mhz with 12 megs of RAM that runs Win95/Office97 pretty well. I've never had to do any major repairs on it (I did replace the HD about 7 yrs ago) and if all you need it for is word processing/spreadsheet apps, then there's really no need for a faster computer. I mean c'mon, exactly how much has the latest M$ office product line actually improved your productivity compared to the original release ver? In my case not at all... M$ has only turned it into RAM/HD gobbling Über bloatware with little/no added practical functionality. As for hardware failures, it's just a tad bit over 9 years old and I've never had anything actually *break* on me yet (maybe I'm just damn lucky, or maybe Gateway builds really solid boxen, I dunno). I guess what you gotta remember is that people are just (for the most part) continuing to use computers for the same things they did 10 years ago. The only reason you need faster computers is that now we have complex GUI's and animated "helper" characters and other resource-clogging cruft. If you're willing to live with apps that get the job done just as well but lack a pretty interface, a 486/P1 is fine.
Oh yeah, it also (aside from the HDD, which sounds like a small jackhammer) runs much more quietly than the 900mhx Athlon I'm using to post this.
Hrmm.. it just ocurred to me, wouldn't you be able (if you're good) use one of those old bad boys as a controller for a battlebot? That would be cool, and it doesn't matter if it gets broken:). Just have a real sturdy specialized isa card that handles the i/o and a GPL'd software package that uses some scripting language to conrol behaviour based on inputs (remote control would be simplest. reaction to environmental "stimuli" would be most badass).
There are many things that people say that would warrant government action. Because the internet doesn't have physical boundaries, what kind of jurisdiction would government agencies have? I.e. airports have a zero tolerance policy. What if you wrote an e-mail to your friend joking about blowing up an airplane? Would you have wiretaps installed in your house? What about if you *hypothetically* hated the pres and joked about assassinating him? Would the CIA knock on your door tomorrow? How is this supposed to deter terrorists when we have PGP/GPG?? If echelon can catch a terrorist, then that guy is one sad excuse for a loser. What if you were a software/hardway/anything company that was developing a product that had national security issues and a fax was intercepted? Would the gov declare eminent domain before you could even recoup your res/dev costs? It basically comes down to how much weight would an echelon-intercepted message would carry. Is it sufficient evidence to get a judge to sign a warrant? If so, then echelon is a huge violation of your constitutional rights, as it is an unreasonable/illegal search and seizure. If it isn't, then wtf is it gonna be used for? I guess you would have to debate over whether echelon is passive or active surveillance (it seems quite active to me). Anyway, IANAL, but I think that echelon will see time in the supreme court if the good ol US gov ever admits its existence.
Actually, I'm working with a few guys on a program similar to this, and the technology is a "killer app". You don't need to have X users online in order for all the packets to be available. Essentially, everyone that has downloaded a "swarmcasted" file will have all the packets necessary to produce a complete file. The more people with all the packets, the more routes the packets are able to go through. If only two clients are up, you can DL from two routes simultaneously. If 5, then you can go 5-way, etc etc. This helps when.. say.. each of 5 routes are bottlenecked at 10k/s. You can effectively get a transfer rate of 50k if you simultaneously DL from all 5 routes, or, if you like the traditional way, you can take your pick of which source to DL from and get stuck at 10k/s. Imagine if you could simultaneously DL all packets from all your neighbors for a linux distro (assuming they all have the distro you want) instead of having to go through some central server a thousand miles away with bottlenecks all over. Even if you have a T-3 and they all have DSL's, you effective get a througput of N*M (N = number of neighbors with the distro, M = the max DTR of the DSL modems) The upper limit is either the max combine DTR of all DSL's or the max DTR of your T-3. Of course, that is a best case scenario, but you get the picture. That technology facilitates a minimum transfer rate = the fastest connection with a complete set of packets and a max that is hugely scalable (in theory) to nearly infinity.
as being an error:P. Maybe MS has accidentally programmed Word to spot truth errors??!
"Linux is created by third parties that they have no control over."
Another error pointed out by Word! Oh no! MS has programmed Word to recognize faulty logic! MS is trying to say that the OS manufacturer should control all third-party vendors, but even Word knows better!
"Microsoft has the talent, resources, and funding to continue developing products that customers want."
Oh no!, Word points out that the word "customers" is in error! Word realizes that Microsoft actually means "idiots" when referring to "customers".
"From an administration perspective, GoInvest.com is finding that the Windows environment is easier and more user-friendly for them to administer than Linux."
Good Lord! MS points out another error. Apparently the phrase "more user-friendly" is incorrect! I guess MS programmed Word to use logic beyond the grasp of their PR droids.
all errors are pointed out in the doc when using MS Word 2000
I wonder if using a pile of Crusoes, as opposed to x86's, in a parallel processing supercomputer would make a big difference in power consumption and heat? Something that runs that cool would also be nice to have as a dual-processor solution (so it has the punch of an Intel or AMD) in a desktop. Don't have to listen to all the damn fans.
Show me a supercomputer, or even a DC network of supercomputers that can calculate the exact information given every sizeable intrasolar and near-extrasolar object faster than the events occur in RL. In theory we could calculate exactly if/when an object will colide with any other given object, not in practice. The further in the future you attempt to "predict," the smaller/farther the objects you have to take into account. The vast majority of impacts will happen thousands (or millions, or billions... until the sun expands and consumes the earth) of years from now, and in order to calculate that far ahead, you'd need to catalogue every minor object as well. You would also need to accurately determine the outcome of collisions not involving earth.
I must admit, however, now that I've read it again, the exact wording of what I said was pretty retarded. What I meant to say is that we cannot consider the odds we use today to be an accurate estimate, as they are not based upon direct observation, only the assumption that what has happened in the past is exactly what will happen in the future. When I said "exact probability" (an oxymoron!) I meant probability that is derived from direct observation.
We can extrapolate estimates of the odds of a sizeable asteroid striking earth within a given time period. The odds we have now are not based upon direct observation, only by studying past strikes and the time period in between the major ones. Until we have catalogued every single sizeable intrasolar and near-extrasolar we cannot determine exact odds. All we can say is that is it very unlikely for two large stellar bodies to strike earth within a short time span.
The age of the Universe is 12-15 billion years relative to what? There is no absolute measure of time, and objects such as quasars are so far away that they approach relativistic velocities. Time, to the quasar, is "streched" out so that 12-15 billion years to us could be several times that to any object traveling fast enough with respect to earth. This is the reason that muons can reach the surface of they earth, even though they should decay long before that. Because muons travel at relativistic speeds, the time is measured differently from their perspective. In short, by your reasoning, astronomers would have already largely solved the problem of the topography of the universe if they assumed that 12-15 billion years to us limited the "diameter" of the universe to 30 billion lightyears at the uppermost limit.
The Subaru has the largest single mirror of any telescope. Ever. The scope is 8.2 meters across. It is calibrated so well that the body heat of a person standing in the same building can affect the data. They also have these cool computer-controlled air vents surrounding the telescope enclosure that negates all wind movement. The "backend" setup to compliment its massive magnification power includes 2 supercomputers. One is a vector parallel processing behemoth that runs at the speed of approx 5,000 high-end desktops (for all you supercomputer types out there, this is just to put it in a ballpark perspective for everyone... I know it's kinda like comparing apples and oranges). They store all the raw data from their scope on 5 petasites (yes, 5 petabytes of storage!!... and they were supposedly upgrading to 80 gigabytes of RAM). Using god-knows-what kind of algorithms and stuff, they are able to extrapolate info from the raw data that would normally remain undetected. Checking out the flag on the moon with the Subaru would be barely flexing its muscles, which is why the don't even bother. Why waste the time?
Sorry, my bad:). I was writing at around 1:00am (or midnight... really late anyways... I live in Hawaii) and I got mixed up between light years and AU's.
Because I'm not an astronomer. I just have a fair deal of interest in the subject, and I don't necessarily agree with the astronomers' tactic of disdaining to respond to the hoax. I think the astonomers have generally overestimated the general intelligence of the populace by assuming that everyone would see through such a transparent bid for higher network ratings.
"...basically, if we see something coming in the next century, we're fucked."
Actually, if we had a decade's notice, we could probably alter the trajectory of the object enough so that it would miss earth entirely. The whole blowing up the object theory is total crap. It is true, however, that the timeframes given in movies like Deep Impact and Armageddon are too short for action given our current technological state. It is interesting to note that the Orion system used in Deep Impact has already been invented (in theory), but the use of nukes in space is banned by international treaty.
"...Advances in energy and kinetic weapons that could allow us to pulverize a potential threat while still several AU away. Multiple large Hubble-like detectors scanning the heavens."
I generally agree with your line of reasoning, but I just wanted to point out that an object "several AU away" wouldn't reach us any time soon... at the very least not in the next few centuries. Also, it would be much more feasible to construct more ground-based telescopes like the Subaru, which is more powerful than the Hubble anyway.
Because the moon hoax is not even considered worthy of consideration by any astronomer worthy of the title.
1) In a vacuum, or near vacuum, stars cannot appear in the same picture as a high-albedo object in direct sunlight unless they are edited in later. The film would have been instantly identified as a hoax if there actually were stars in the background.
2) The flag waves because of the kinetic energy imparted to the material when the astronauts are putting it in the ground.
3) The flag is held upright by a metal rod. Using the metal rod to hold the flag up was actually a controversial issue for a while, but it was decided that a sagging American flag would look pretty sad.
4) Most importantly, you don't need the Subaru telescope to see if the flag is on the surface of the moon. The Russian government would have jumped at the chance to point out such an obvious hoax, and the Cold War ended long after telescopes powerful enough to verify (or not!) the landing site were easily available to a large government. If it were all a hoax, we would have found out a long time ago.
5) It would have been a fairly easy and straightforward task to detect the origin of the video/radio signals being broadcast. Even if the Russians didn't have decent telescopes in their posession, they would have been able to triangulate the origin of the signals, just as America verified that Sputnik was actually sending out radio signals from orbit.
Anything I missed? I didn't pay any attention to the stuff they aired on TV, and I responded to the things I keep hearing people talk about.
The article really plays down the chances of a sizeable celestial object colliding with the Earth. The chance that any specific object will collide with the Earth is astronomically small to say the least. The chance that any object will collide with the Earth, however, is not calculable given the amount of data we possess about intrasolar/near extrasolar objects. I interned at the Subaru telescope, and someone in control of that organization must feel that the threat of an Earth impact is significant because although the telescope can take clear pictures (I have one, but it was given to me on the condition that I not distribute it) of large stellar objects 50 billon lightyears away (while only halfway calibrated!), it is being used primarily for near-solar and intrasolar observation. To put that kind of magnification power into perspective, I was told that the telescope could clearly identify a car, allowing you to determine the model and year if it were floating in the asteroid belt. You could alternatively read the label and judge the depth of the dimples on a golf ball if it were sitting on the summit of Mt. Fuji (the telescope is in Hilo, Hawaii). The only reason you need something that powerful for near-solar and closer distances is if you looking for medium/small (1km diam. objs easily fit into the small category) objects that possess a very low albedo (reflectivity). An asteroid with the right composition, for instance, can reflect so little sunlight that it would be invisible to nearly all means of passive detection except when you have the power of massive magnification of the Subaru telescope type. Such an asteroid would easily be able to approach earth undetected until much too late. If I remember correctly, a fairly large low-albedo asteroid passed near the earth just a few years ago, and remained undetected until it was inside the moon's orbital path.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to realize that your calculations assume you get absolutely no raises after you get the initial 10k/yr boost.
It would be a very Bad Thing if the Australian gov't is able to wrest control of the domain away from Robert Elz because it would set a nasty precedence for future possible litigation. It basically would say that people with established RL organization names have an exclusive right to online domains that resemble those organization names. It would also place the administration of domain names in the hands of the government, setting the stage for a 100% gov't owned and operated internet.
By your logic the internet = "the world's biggest porn shop" because it contains a large repository of porn. Assuming this logic is correct, the world in general is an even bigger porn shop because it contains the internet, PPV channels and Playboy et al. By your reasoning, you should therefore not let your children out of the house without special glasses and earmuffs that censor the outside world.
You missed the whole point of my post. What I meant was that it is known that radio-frequency radiation can cause tumors/cancer. The "shields" being patented block radio-frequency radiation, and therefore reduce the risk of tumors/cancer. This is all independant of the issue of whether or not cell phones cause tumors/cancer... or even whether or not they radiate anything at all.
They claim that it can block radio frequency radiation, which can cause tumors/cancer, therefore reducing the risk of tumors/cancer. They do not claim to be reducing cancer (not*) caused by cell phones.
*or so they hope... nobody can really extrapolate anything solid from the current research data.
You totally missed the whole point of what I was saying. I said it is your choice, but I'm sure that if they thought about it, many people would choose to be a little more conscientious(sp?). Anyway, I never advocated actively forcing people to be vegetarian, and being vegetarian is *not* lowering your standards of living. It's simply a matter (quite literally) of taste. Most people wouldn't give a damn if they were vegetarians or not, so long as the food tasted good. I don't really believe in the "common good" sort of theories of self-sacrifice (I agree with objectivists on a lot these types of issues) but I also think that waste and excess due to ignorance is a Bad Thing. If you *want* to waste resources and stuff, then that's your choice (hell, I'm not a vegetarian... my dad's a cowboy), I'm saying that if you're only throwing stuff away due to ignorance then you should think twice. Don't even get me started on the whole issue of donating money to other countries.
Very good points. The "Ostrich technique" also the "Ostrich maneuver" is the belief that sticking your head in the sand and ignoring your surroundings will make the problems go away/cease to exist.
As a rebuttal to 4, I would like to point out that the United States (both government and businesses) deliberately block most 3rd world countries from developing independant industries capable of supporting themselves in the same manner as we are. As you stated, the US looked much the same in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, but it was self-imposed. The difference between what we had back then and what we're doing now is that now all the significant revenue flows back to the US because most of these large industrial companies are US-based. The US is not "creating jobs" to help people, only exploiting low-cost labor and lax working conditions standards. The 3rd world countries we exploit will never become independant of this process (if things remain as they stand now) because the extra profits generated by this low overhead all go out of country.
#5 is a very good point, and normally I would agree but the fact is that in order for people to farm on an industrial (not subsistence) level, they need complex machinery, processing facilities, fertilizers, and steady supply of necessary resources. Therefore industrial-level farming is not feasible in most 3rd world countries outside of near slave labor-like conditions where scores of under/non-paid people do the work of a single machine. Unless we wish to give those countries all the machines/technology they need (and therefore create a competing market... assuming their dictator governments do not just sell the stuff for munitions etc) we can only let them starve or give them food.
#6 (whether or not humans were "made" to be vegetarians) is irrelevant. The fact is that humans can survive very well on a completely non-meat diet. I agree that it is your choice, but the point I was making is that most Americans do not give it a second thought and do not want to be told about how much their choice costs the rest of the world.
Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.
The only reason that the west has become morally degenerate as you state is because people listen to sayings like that. Scientists who develop technologies without regard to the social impact it may have follow your line of reasoning and deliberately remain ignorant of the potentials of their technologies because they can't be bothered. The masses ultimately allow the use of the technology, but remain deliberately ignorant of the issues in order to reserve the right of moral indignation (they never told us smoking was bad/addicting so it's not my fault etc). The US is a prime example of the ostrich technique. Our economy is based on the suffering of many underdeveloped countries, yet most US citizens are vehemently opposed the exploitation of impoverished people. By deliberately remaining ignorant of the facts, people can claim the moral high ground--and still get cheap Nikes. If the US were to become vegetarian, there would be more than enough food for everyone on the planet (we supply more than enough grain for domestic and foreign markets, and we feed 80% of our grain to livestock, which take more than 1,000,000 times the resources to produce, pound per pound, than vegetables). But we can't be expected to give up our hamburgers and... SPAM! And besides, nobody actually "knows" this, so it's ok.
The only way technology/progress sees immoral applications is when people choose to remain ignorant of the realities.
I remember reading somewhere that NASA considers 10 years to be the upper age limit of installation reliability (re: structures in orbit). I wonder what will happen if it takes them 10 years to make the ISS fully operational? Will they have to start replacing the original modules as they approach the end of their reliable operational age? It seems to me that it is highly likely that the ISS will *always* be in a state of construction... kinda like a bad website.
on what you're using the machine for. I've got a working 486DX2/66mhz with 12 megs of RAM that runs Win95/Office97 pretty well. I've never had to do any major repairs on it (I did replace the HD about 7 yrs ago) and if all you need it for is word processing/spreadsheet apps, then there's really no need for a faster computer. I mean c'mon, exactly how much has the latest M$ office product line actually improved your productivity compared to the original release ver? In my case not at all... M$ has only turned it into RAM/HD gobbling Über bloatware with little/no added practical functionality. As for hardware failures, it's just a tad bit over 9 years old and I've never had anything actually *break* on me yet (maybe I'm just damn lucky, or maybe Gateway builds really solid boxen, I dunno). I guess what you gotta remember is that people are just (for the most part) continuing to use computers for the same things they did 10 years ago. The only reason you need faster computers is that now we have complex GUI's and animated "helper" characters and other resource-clogging cruft. If you're willing to live with apps that get the job done just as well but lack a pretty interface, a 486/P1 is fine.
:). Just have a real sturdy specialized isa card that handles the i/o and a GPL'd software package that uses some scripting language to conrol behaviour based on inputs (remote control would be simplest. reaction to environmental "stimuli" would be most badass).
Oh yeah, it also (aside from the HDD, which sounds like a small jackhammer) runs much more quietly than the 900mhx Athlon I'm using to post this.
Hrmm.. it just ocurred to me, wouldn't you be able (if you're good) use one of those old bad boys as a controller for a battlebot? That would be cool, and it doesn't matter if it gets broken
There are many things that people say that would warrant government action. Because the internet doesn't have physical boundaries, what kind of jurisdiction would government agencies have? I.e. airports have a zero tolerance policy. What if you wrote an e-mail to your friend joking about blowing up an airplane? Would you have wiretaps installed in your house? What about if you *hypothetically* hated the pres and joked about assassinating him? Would the CIA knock on your door tomorrow? How is this supposed to deter terrorists when we have PGP/GPG?? If echelon can catch a terrorist, then that guy is one sad excuse for a loser. What if you were a software/hardway/anything company that was developing a product that had national security issues and a fax was intercepted? Would the gov declare eminent domain before you could even recoup your res/dev costs? It basically comes down to how much weight would an echelon-intercepted message would carry. Is it sufficient evidence to get a judge to sign a warrant? If so, then echelon is a huge violation of your constitutional rights, as it is an unreasonable/illegal search and seizure. If it isn't, then wtf is it gonna be used for? I guess you would have to debate over whether echelon is passive or active surveillance (it seems quite active to me). Anyway, IANAL, but I think that echelon will see time in the supreme court if the good ol US gov ever admits its existence.
Now secret government agencies can start losing their desktop boxen too
Actually, I'm working with a few guys on a program similar to this, and the technology is a "killer app". You don't need to have X users online in order for all the packets to be available. Essentially, everyone that has downloaded a "swarmcasted" file will have all the packets necessary to produce a complete file. The more people with all the packets, the more routes the packets are able to go through. If only two clients are up, you can DL from two routes simultaneously. If 5, then you can go 5-way, etc etc. This helps when.. say.. each of 5 routes are bottlenecked at 10k/s. You can effectively get a transfer rate of 50k if you simultaneously DL from all 5 routes, or, if you like the traditional way, you can take your pick of which source to DL from and get stuck at 10k/s. Imagine if you could simultaneously DL all packets from all your neighbors for a linux distro (assuming they all have the distro you want) instead of having to go through some central server a thousand miles away with bottlenecks all over. Even if you have a T-3 and they all have DSL's, you effective get a througput of N*M (N = number of neighbors with the distro, M = the max DTR of the DSL modems) The upper limit is either the max combine DTR of all DSL's or the max DTR of your T-3. Of course, that is a best case scenario, but you get the picture. That technology facilitates a minimum transfer rate = the fastest connection with a complete set of packets and a max that is hugely scalable (in theory) to nearly infinity.
MS Word points out the sentence:
:P. Maybe MS has accidentally programmed Word to spot truth errors??!
"Very few retailers run Linux today."
as being an error
"Linux is created by third parties that they have no control over."
Another error pointed out by Word! Oh no! MS has programmed Word to recognize faulty logic! MS is trying to say that the OS manufacturer should control all third-party vendors, but even Word knows better!
"Microsoft has the talent, resources, and funding to continue developing products that customers want."
Oh no!, Word points out that the word "customers" is in error! Word realizes that Microsoft actually means "idiots" when referring to "customers".
"From an administration perspective, GoInvest.com is finding that the Windows environment is easier and more user-friendly for them to administer than Linux."
Good Lord! MS points out another error. Apparently the phrase "more user-friendly" is incorrect! I guess MS programmed Word to use logic beyond the grasp of their PR droids.
all errors are pointed out in the doc when using MS Word 2000
Kind of ironic that a pro OSS company is using one of Microsoft's most effective strategies (embrace and adopt... I think) against them.
:)
It's about time they got a taste of their own medicine
I wonder if using a pile of Crusoes, as opposed to x86's, in a parallel processing supercomputer would make a big difference in power consumption and heat? Something that runs that cool would also be nice to have as a dual-processor solution (so it has the punch of an Intel or AMD) in a desktop. Don't have to listen to all the damn fans.
Show me a supercomputer, or even a DC network of supercomputers that can calculate the exact information given every sizeable intrasolar and near-extrasolar object faster than the events occur in RL. In theory we could calculate exactly if/when an object will colide with any other given object, not in practice. The further in the future you attempt to "predict," the smaller/farther the objects you have to take into account. The vast majority of impacts will happen thousands (or millions, or billions... until the sun expands and consumes the earth) of years from now, and in order to calculate that far ahead, you'd need to catalogue every minor object as well. You would also need to accurately determine the outcome of collisions not involving earth.
I must admit, however, now that I've read it again, the exact wording of what I said was pretty retarded. What I meant to say is that we cannot consider the odds we use today to be an accurate estimate, as they are not based upon direct observation, only the assumption that what has happened in the past is exactly what will happen in the future. When I said "exact probability" (an oxymoron!) I meant probability that is derived from direct observation.
We can extrapolate estimates of the odds of a sizeable asteroid striking earth within a given time period. The odds we have now are not based upon direct observation, only by studying past strikes and the time period in between the major ones. Until we have catalogued every single sizeable intrasolar and near-extrasolar we cannot determine exact odds. All we can say is that is it very unlikely for two large stellar bodies to strike earth within a short time span.
The age of the Universe is 12-15 billion years relative to what? There is no absolute measure of time, and objects such as quasars are so far away that they approach relativistic velocities. Time, to the quasar, is "streched" out so that 12-15 billion years to us could be several times that to any object traveling fast enough with respect to earth. This is the reason that muons can reach the surface of they earth, even though they should decay long before that. Because muons travel at relativistic speeds, the time is measured differently from their perspective. In short, by your reasoning, astronomers would have already largely solved the problem of the topography of the universe if they assumed that 12-15 billion years to us limited the "diameter" of the universe to 30 billion lightyears at the uppermost limit.
The Subaru has the largest single mirror of any telescope. Ever. The scope is 8.2 meters across. It is calibrated so well that the body heat of a person standing in the same building can affect the data. They also have these cool computer-controlled air vents surrounding the telescope enclosure that negates all wind movement. The "backend" setup to compliment its massive magnification power includes 2 supercomputers. One is a vector parallel processing behemoth that runs at the speed of approx 5,000 high-end desktops (for all you supercomputer types out there, this is just to put it in a ballpark perspective for everyone... I know it's kinda like comparing apples and oranges). They store all the raw data from their scope on 5 petasites (yes, 5 petabytes of storage!!... and they were supposedly upgrading to 80 gigabytes of RAM). Using god-knows-what kind of algorithms and stuff, they are able to extrapolate info from the raw data that would normally remain undetected. Checking out the flag on the moon with the Subaru would be barely flexing its muscles, which is why the don't even bother. Why waste the time?
Sorry, my bad :). I was writing at around 1:00am (or midnight... really late anyways... I live in Hawaii) and I got mixed up between light years and AU's.
Because I'm not an astronomer. I just have a fair deal of interest in the subject, and I don't necessarily agree with the astronomers' tactic of disdaining to respond to the hoax. I think the astonomers have generally overestimated the general intelligence of the populace by assuming that everyone would see through such a transparent bid for higher network ratings.
"...basically, if we see something coming in the next century, we're fucked."
Actually, if we had a decade's notice, we could probably alter the trajectory of the object enough so that it would miss earth entirely. The whole blowing up the object theory is total crap. It is true, however, that the timeframes given in movies like Deep Impact and Armageddon are too short for action given our current technological state. It is interesting to note that the Orion system used in Deep Impact has already been invented (in theory), but the use of nukes in space is banned by international treaty.
"...Advances in energy and kinetic weapons that could allow us to pulverize a potential threat while still several AU away. Multiple large Hubble-like detectors scanning the heavens."
I generally agree with your line of reasoning, but I just wanted to point out that an object "several AU away" wouldn't reach us any time soon... at the very least not in the next few centuries. Also, it would be much more feasible to construct more ground-based telescopes like the Subaru, which is more powerful than the Hubble anyway.
Because the moon hoax is not even considered worthy of consideration by any astronomer worthy of the title.
1) In a vacuum, or near vacuum, stars cannot appear in the same picture as a high-albedo object in direct sunlight unless they are edited in later. The film would have been instantly identified as a hoax if there actually were stars in the background.
2) The flag waves because of the kinetic energy imparted to the material when the astronauts are putting it in the ground.
3) The flag is held upright by a metal rod. Using the metal rod to hold the flag up was actually a controversial issue for a while, but it was decided that a sagging American flag would look pretty sad.
4) Most importantly, you don't need the Subaru telescope to see if the flag is on the surface of the moon. The Russian government would have jumped at the chance to point out such an obvious hoax, and the Cold War ended long after telescopes powerful enough to verify (or not!) the landing site were easily available to a large government. If it were all a hoax, we would have found out a long time ago.
5) It would have been a fairly easy and straightforward task to detect the origin of the video/radio signals being broadcast. Even if the Russians didn't have decent telescopes in their posession, they would have been able to triangulate the origin of the signals, just as America verified that Sputnik was actually sending out radio signals from orbit.
Anything I missed? I didn't pay any attention to the stuff they aired on TV, and I responded to the things I keep hearing people talk about.
The article really plays down the chances of a sizeable celestial object colliding with the Earth. The chance that any specific object will collide with the Earth is astronomically small to say the least. The chance that any object will collide with the Earth, however, is not calculable given the amount of data we possess about intrasolar/near extrasolar objects. I interned at the Subaru telescope, and someone in control of that organization must feel that the threat of an Earth impact is significant because although the telescope can take clear pictures (I have one, but it was given to me on the condition that I not distribute it) of large stellar objects 50 billon lightyears away (while only halfway calibrated!), it is being used primarily for near-solar and intrasolar observation. To put that kind of magnification power into perspective, I was told that the telescope could clearly identify a car, allowing you to determine the model and year if it were floating in the asteroid belt. You could alternatively read the label and judge the depth of the dimples on a golf ball if it were sitting on the summit of Mt. Fuji (the telescope is in Hilo, Hawaii). The only reason you need something that powerful for near-solar and closer distances is if you looking for medium/small (1km diam. objs easily fit into the small category) objects that possess a very low albedo (reflectivity). An asteroid with the right composition, for instance, can reflect so little sunlight that it would be invisible to nearly all means of passive detection except when you have the power of massive magnification of the Subaru telescope type. Such an asteroid would easily be able to approach earth undetected until much too late. If I remember correctly, a fairly large low-albedo asteroid passed near the earth just a few years ago, and remained undetected until it was inside the moon's orbital path.