from LA to Sydney (4/6/00) had to shift it's flight path a little because of GRO. I know because I was on that flight:O
IIRC, the plane flew a little to the west of it's usual flight path. Appearently there was no danger due to the timing of the events (ie plane and satelite not in the same area at the same time) but they weren't taking any risks (though it would be an interesting way to go: "err, his plane was hit by a satellite", though I don't think my wife would see it that way)
I agree that those couples shouldn't have gotten married in the first place, but there's often only one way to find out...
I see your point, but I disagree with your assertion that it makes us all worse off. Just because a couple gets together knowing they can `just get a divorce' if things don't turn out doesn't mean they aren't committed. Heck, every other legal contract (and that's exactly what a marriage is) has an out; why should marriage be any different? (ok, that doesn't support my argument, but still...). Having an out make it easier to make a commitment. How does divorce not being available help anybody?
Hmm, I just realised the flaw in your argument. Having divorce as an option actually strengthens the commitment in a marriage, if it doesn't create it in the first place. If there is no option, there can be no commitment as there is no choice.
With divorce available, the couple is committing to making their marriage work. Without divorce, where is the commitment? What are they committing to? When my wife and I got married, we went in saying to each other "it's a gamble and if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but let's do the best we can to make it work". And as I said earlier, we're still married after almost 9 years (and I'm only 29:).
For a couple with no kids, there's no real problem, they just divvy up (maybe messily, but that's irrelevant) and go their separate ways (yes, that doesn't always work, but that's irrelevant too).
For a couple with kids, those kids are probably better off with divorced parents than ones that stay together "for the kids". Yes, it's messy and upsetting for the kids, but that's far better than living with parents that hate each other and are force to live with each other.
Now, I'm still in my first marriage (comming on 9 years) with two kids and I'm hoping that it will be "death do us part" (or 50 years, that's what we jokingly promised each other), but if it should ever come to the point where my wife and I hate each other, we won't be staying together "for the kids". That would cause them more harm than good. Sure, we came close to splitting up a few years ago, but that was due to external problems and missunderstandings, but fortunatly we realised what the problem was and that we still wanted to be with each other before it was too late.
Couples that don't want to be together (and remember, it takes two), should be allowed to split up, no matter what. I will conceed, however, that many give up too early (as my wife and I almost did), but they do still have the option of getting back together again, should they decide that splitting was a mistake. I believe it is peaple being forced to live together when they don't want to that causes most domestic violence (there are exceptions).
I believe that would be Home Find here in New Zealand. I found all three of my homes in NZ through it ($90nz for 6 monts iirc). And yes, it sure beat trying to find them in the news paper.
That said, I wound up going through the news paper for my new place in Calgary, but that was only because my cousin was helping me and went through the web version of the Calgary Herald. In case that just confused you, I'm moving in 1 month (eek!!, but they're paying, bwahaha:)
/me is looking forward to moving into his nice 3 br house with basement (hasn't had a basement for 15 years:/ )
hehe, oh the memories. I used to do that untill (following a mag articla) I hacked the miniassembler out of Integer basic so I could use it without having to boot the apple into INT mode:). Oh, the hacks I got up to:) hires screen rotation (180), multi tones, disc hacking...
True, but the plan is to use public key crypto with the secret key scattered randomly through the client (and server, I suppose) such that two builds from the same source will result in different binaries (even with the same key set) and the public key, well, public. I believe stenography (sp?) will be used to help hid the key as well I'm not certain, but I think QWF has managed to make the key hiding secure. As I said, I don't know the details.
If a client is ever discovered to be cheating, it's key is revoked. The downside of this is that if one person manages to hack a client to cheat, everybody must get a new binary, otherwise they will not be able to play once the old key is revoked. So, though not bullet proof, hacked binaries are considered in the plan.
First: I'm one of the quakeforge developers (taniwha), so this is basicly from the horse's mouth:), though I will probably miss a lot:/.
All files (exept for the work being done for the merge: it isn't ready yet) can be had from our downloads page. This includes the olde QuakeForge 0.1.1 release (source only), current CVS source snapshots, and Win32 binaries (both VC++ and Borland C++ 5.0 (?), but the latter is offsite). Anon Cvs accass can be had with: cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.quake.sourceforge.net:/cv sroot/quake login no password cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.quake.sourceforge.net:/cv sroot/quake co quakeforge
As to cheat protection: Quakeforge currently has a speed cheat protection mechanism, and QWF has cryptographic protection (I don't know the link, sorry), that we will be ported to QF during the merge. I'm not sure how QWF implements it (though I believe it involves blessed binaries), but I do know that the exchanging of a secret that becomes part of the checksummed packet (but never transmitted) in a manner similar to APOP was discussed. With just this combination, almost all cheats will be rendered difficult if not impossible.
Some interesting features in that have been implemented in Quakeforge are the ability to separate out the game data directories and your game save directories which also results in being able to run the game from any directory once it's configured correctly, native ALSA 0.5.x sound support (Linux), lot's of GL eye candy, the speed cheat fix and lots and lots of bug fixes to both quakeworld and the original single player game.
The "An Eye for an Eye" society was definitly in "Number of the Beast" (I read it enough times:). I can't remember that much of "Job", but I don't think Heinlein went into as much detail for the societies in "Job", he was too busy with the other aspects of the book. Also, I'm pretty sure the "AEfaE" society was the one that hung the lawyers.
Gay Deceiver (and the gyro drive) are my favorite parts of NotB.
heh, `unlimited' dialup access is available here, too (though I'm not sure of the conditions). At the time I signed up, I couldn't affort the extra $15,. now, I'm too lazy to change over (espacially as I have my own domain being hosted by my isp). Also, I only have one phone:(
I'm not certain of the details, but the boiler plate usually says (paraphrase) "see COPYING which accompanies this file. If it doesn't, get it from the FSF". Now, I don't know what the one comment had in it exactly, but if I saw something sawing what I was looking at was GPL, and I'ld look up just what GPL means.
Nobody could affort the floor covering. Remeber, the probabily of buttered toast landing buttered side up is inversly* proportinal to the cost of the floor covering. Thus for the toast to be guaranteed to land butter side down, the floor covering must be infinityly expensive taking the previous probability to 0.
* Yes, I am perfectly aware that this falls apart for value=1. the probablility is more likely e**-v.
Thanks for that (esp the URL), but one problem: the signal being discussed was not going FTL, the observer was. That said, I have no problem with what you had to say (I already knew of it from Traveller 2300/2300AD), and I find that sort of thing fascinating.
It would cause SOMEONE to observe the signal traveling bacwards in time. Because we have to transform the times for any inertial observer someone in a rocket ship going very fast (but still below the speed of light) will see the transmission of the signal occur after it is recieved.
I can agree with the first part, but the seconed seems to be utter rubish. If the person in the ship saw the signal being received, he has to have already seen it transmitted. If he's between the transmitter and the receiver, the transmittion will pass him on its way to the receiver (unless he's going FTL towards the receiver), therefore it's seen first. If he's going towards the receiver faster than light, he will not see the transmittion until sometime after he slows to less than the speed of light, and then he will either see the transmisstion before the reception, or at the same time (depending on location).
Any speed towards the transmitter is simple, unless the receiver is between him and the transmitter, he will see the transmittion first, otherwise at the same time.
The above is all for a linear arrangement. With a triangle arrangement, he will always see the transmittion first.
One last thing: If he's going FTL towards the receiver from the transmitter, he will see the reception, but not the tranmission as he is outrunning that signal. And as soon as he turns around to race to the transmitter to tell them not to transmit (assuming 0 inertia), he will see them do so and thus be too late.
If you (or anyone) can give links to a nice explanation with clearly labeled diagrams and math, that would be great, as all the explanations I've seen make no sence at all.
I think this backwards though time bit might be a common mistake. The equation for time dialation is sqrt(1-v*v/(c*c)) and when v is greater than c, it becomes sqrt(-x) which is definity not backwards. If anything, it's sideways.
Now, if you think about it, assuming FTL is possible, what will happen is that when someone is coming to you faster than light, it will appear that they arrive before they left because the light showing their departure arrives after the light showing their arrival.
If they're departing from your location, they will appear to arraive at their destination x+y years after their departure where x is the distance in lightyears and y is their travel time in years.
Of course, all the above could be a load of baloney, but still, I don't see how going faster than light would cause you to really go backwards through time.
That's true, but at 100km altitude, it's still 9.5m/s^2. For back of the envelope calcs, G is basicly constant for that range, so just good old E=mgh is good enough. Hmm, 10kg*100000m*9.65m/s^2 (average accel) gives 9.65MJ. I don't think I want to be hit by that.
This stuff is going to make our current PCs look like vacuume tube computers. There is no way such a fundamentan shift in `direction' is going to be only an incremental step. This will be like going from plates and grids and electron streams to silicon layers and fields. This has a lot of potential.
Slashdot Mirror
sorry, typo :/
IIRC, the plane flew a little to the west of it's usual flight path. Appearently there was no danger due to the timing of the events (ie plane and satelite not in the same area at the same time) but they weren't taking any risks (though it would be an interesting way to go: "err, his plane was hit by a satellite", though I don't think my wife would see it that way)
I see your point, but I disagree with your assertion that it makes us all worse off. Just because a couple gets together knowing they can `just get a divorce' if things don't turn out doesn't mean they aren't committed. Heck, every other legal contract (and that's exactly what a marriage is) has an out; why should marriage be any different? (ok, that doesn't support my argument, but still...). Having an out make it easier to make a commitment. How does divorce not being available help anybody?
Hmm, I just realised the flaw in your argument. Having divorce as an option actually strengthens the commitment in a marriage, if it doesn't create it in the first place. If there is no option, there can be no commitment as there is no choice.
With divorce available, the couple is committing to making their marriage work. Without divorce, where is the commitment? What are they committing to? When my wife and I got married, we went in saying to each other "it's a gamble and if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but let's do the best we can to make it work". And as I said earlier, we're still married after almost 9 years (and I'm only 29:).
For a couple with no kids, there's no real problem, they just divvy up (maybe messily, but that's irrelevant) and go their separate ways (yes, that doesn't always work, but that's irrelevant too).
For a couple with kids, those kids are probably better off with divorced parents than ones that stay together "for the kids". Yes, it's messy and upsetting for the kids, but that's far better than living with parents that hate each other and are force to live with each other.
Now, I'm still in my first marriage (comming on 9 years) with two kids and I'm hoping that it will be "death do us part" (or 50 years, that's what we jokingly promised each other), but if it should ever come to the point where my wife and I hate each other, we won't be staying together "for the kids". That would cause them more harm than good. Sure, we came close to splitting up a few years ago, but that was due to external problems and missunderstandings, but fortunatly we realised what the problem was and that we still wanted to be with each other before it was too late.
Couples that don't want to be together (and remember, it takes two), should be allowed to split up, no matter what. I will conceed, however, that many give up too early (as my wife and I almost did), but they do still have the option of getting back together again, should they decide that splitting was a mistake. I believe it is peaple being forced to live together when they don't want to that causes most domestic violence (there are exceptions).
That said, I wound up going through the news paper for my new place in Calgary, but that was only because my cousin was helping me and went through the web version of the Calgary Herald. In case that just confused you, I'm moving in 1 month (eek!!, but they're paying, bwahaha:)
/me is looking forward to moving into his nice 3 br house with basement (hasn't had a basement for 15 years :/ )
hehe, oh the memories. I used to do that untill (following a mag articla) I hacked the miniassembler out of Integer basic so I could use it without having to boot the apple into INT mode :). Oh, the hacks I got up to :) hires screen rotation (180), multi tones, disc hacking...
If a client is ever discovered to be cheating, it's key is revoked. The downside of this is that if one person manages to hack a client to cheat, everybody must get a new binary, otherwise they will not be able to play once the old key is revoked. So, though not bullet proof, hacked binaries are considered in the plan.
All files (exept for the work being done for the merge: it isn't ready yet) can be had from our downloads page. This includes the olde QuakeForge 0.1.1 release (source only), current CVS source snapshots, and Win32 binaries (both VC++ and Borland C++ 5.0 (?), but the latter is offsite). Anon Cvs accass can be had with:v sroot/quake login v sroot/quake co quakeforge
cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.quake.sourceforge.net:/c
no password
cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.quake.sourceforge.net:/c
As to cheat protection: Quakeforge currently has a speed cheat protection mechanism, and QWF has cryptographic protection (I don't know the link, sorry), that we will be ported to QF during the merge. I'm not sure how QWF implements it (though I believe it involves blessed binaries), but I do know that the exchanging of a secret that becomes part of the checksummed packet (but never transmitted) in a manner similar to APOP was discussed. With just this combination, almost all cheats will be rendered difficult if not impossible.
Some interesting features in that have been implemented in Quakeforge are the ability to separate out the game data directories and your game save directories which also results in being able to run the game from any directory once it's configured correctly, native ALSA 0.5.x sound support (Linux), lot's of GL eye candy, the speed cheat fix and lots and lots of bug fixes to both quakeworld and the original single player game.
taniwha - QF developer (as is theoddone33)
Gay Deceiver (and the gyro drive) are my favorite parts of NotB.
Ok, maybe this comment was meaning someone else proving ownership, but if not, then the only worry is Quake clones.
heh, `unlimited' dialup access is available here, too (though I'm not sure of the conditions). At the time I signed up, I couldn't affort the extra $15,. now, I'm too lazy to change over (espacially as I have my own domain being hosted by my isp). Also, I only have one phone :(
Ouch. I'm paying $30NZ for 250 hours per month. Whatever happenned to everyting in NZ being more expensive than AU? :)
I'm sure you get the idea.
I'm not certain of the details, but the boiler plate usually says (paraphrase) "see COPYING which accompanies this file. If it doesn't, get it from the FSF". Now, I don't know what the one comment had in it exactly, but if I saw something sawing what I was looking at was GPL, and I'ld look up just what GPL means.
* Yes, I am perfectly aware that this falls apart for value=1. the probablility is more likely e**-v.
Thanks for that (esp the URL), but one problem: the signal being discussed was not going FTL, the observer was. That said, I have no problem with what you had to say (I already knew of it from Traveller 2300/2300AD), and I find that sort of thing fascinating.
Second part: Um, cone rotated sideways (ok), FTL travel pointing backwards: eh? you just warped everyting. How can that work?
Third part: the world is flat, the universe goes round the earth, etc, etc. Sorry, that's no proof.
Any speed towards the transmitter is simple, unless the receiver is between him and the transmitter, he will see the transmittion first, otherwise at the same time.
The above is all for a linear arrangement. With a triangle arrangement, he will always see the transmittion first.
One last thing: If he's going FTL towards the receiver from the transmitter, he will see the reception, but not the tranmission as he is outrunning that signal. And as soon as he turns around to race to the transmitter to tell them not to transmit (assuming 0 inertia), he will see them do so and thus be too late.
If you (or anyone) can give links to a nice explanation with clearly labeled diagrams and math, that would be great, as all the explanations I've seen make no sence at all.
Now, if you think about it, assuming FTL is possible, what will happen is that when someone is coming to you faster than light, it will appear that they arrive before they left because the light showing their departure arrives after the light showing their arrival.
If they're departing from your location, they will appear to arraive at their destination x+y years after their departure where x is the distance in lightyears and y is their travel time in years.
Of course, all the above could be a load of baloney, but still, I don't see how going faster than light would cause you to really go backwards through time.
2) I thoroughly enjoyed the book (heck, I did read it twice:) and recommend it to anyone who can find it.
3) (Three things!) Gotta love that Kalishnikov (?). That was one hell of a gun.
Not only does the Star Fraction go into politics and AI, it also covers computer virii and virtual reality. A very thought provoking book.
That's true, but at 100km altitude, it's still 9.5m/s^2. For back of the envelope calcs, G is basicly constant for that range, so just good old E=mgh is good enough. Hmm, 10kg*100000m*9.65m/s^2 (average accel) gives 9.65MJ. I don't think I want to be hit by that.
LOL, that has to be one of the more original grits/petrification posts I've seen. Made my day
This stuff is going to make our current PCs look like vacuume tube computers. There is no way such a fundamentan shift in `direction' is going to be only an incremental step. This will be like going from plates and grids and electron streams to silicon layers and fields. This has a lot of potential.
Hehe, that was funny to watch. Three excellent mpeg movies. I loved the ending of the last one:)