wrong. a) if you want velocities that slow, for most of your flight you're gonna be going even slower than your landing so ignore drag for now. You need to figure out the size of the balloon to provide a force resisting gravity for your dude. Helium will give a lift of something like 1.13 kg/m^3 around sea level at stp (iirc, my little bro asked me when he was building a balloon). So do some math, what radius gives you (1.13)(4/3)pi*r^3=100? Something around 2.5 I guess. If your radius is much bigger than 2.5 meters you'll float away. Now, if you get down to say 1.3 meters, where (again just by estimating) you'd have like half the bouyancy force, you're still talking about high impact speeds. You need to get pretty close to neutral weight if you wanna not hit hard. 1m/s is pretty slow, you can handle an impact of maybe 7m/s without broken bones too much, that's the highest I've fallen from. But 12m/s is the point where the fall is more likely fatal than not, a height of about 7m.
Anyway to summarize, you need to get down to a speed where drag force is negligable so ignore that. You need a balloon radius that gets your effective weight pretty close to 0, then go a little smaller but not too much. You get an upper limit on size by solving (1.13)(4/3)pi*r^3=mass, and the balloon size will be between 2 and 3 meters.
If the universe IS changing, we'll never know from these clocks since they would also be subject to change.
Understandable first reaction but not at all true.
For one, that's saying that we can't measure changes in fundamental constants AT ALL, which isn't true. We could find that our value for G has changed over time in the fifth decimal place.
All these researchers are syaing is that we can now look for changes three decimal places further than we used to.
(Regarding the idea of measuring the change of something fundamental -- there's no reason that the effect you're measuring has to be an effect relevant to the workings of your clocks -- I can measure the fundamental constant, say, G (strength of gravity, by timing how long things take to fall), using, say, a spring-based clock (or a light clock) that is in no way dependent on G. If G changes, I'll see the change. Just because a constant is fundamental doesn't mean it has an effect on the relevant operation of my measuring device.)
That's pretty misleading, too -- everything you've said is common knowledge from a different angle.
Under Bush's tax plan, the rich pay a higher percentage of their income than the non-rich (as well a a higher actual dollar amount, of course).
That's a progressive income tax, a pretty universal feature of modern income tax. The question is, does the Bush plan tilt it MORE toward or away from the rich than previous plans? (draw some graphs, it's fun). As far as I know, he taxes them less. Is this good? Debatable.
The Bush tax cut policy was really aimed at the middle class: most of those who had their taxes reduced are middle class.
Of course; there are more members of the middle class, so more of them had their taxes reduced. This is trivial.
I don't know much about economics and I honestly don't know what the best system is. But I try to stay clear on how things are now and what the options for change are.
And it's that rule that makes people, me included, so edgy about the use. But I was converted by some bunch of grammar nazis who had books. *shrug* I was really hoping you'd find a reference for me so I could settle it one way or another. Flames are a wonderful research tool sometimes;) instead of asking the question, you assert what you think is false and people give references to disprove you.
I may be wrong, but I was told by some important-sounding people many years back that although it defies logic, apostrophes are appropriate in plural usage. A quick Google reference verifies that this has worked it's way into modern usage to the point that its a new rule. You might want to check an official style manual on that one, because I think that it might be right.
And yes, my "it's" and "its" were just to make you cringe. But it hurt me more than it hurt you.
But before you jump on the audioblogging bandwagon, remember this - the power of the Web is the power to choose. You make your own trails, and your own links. You read what you like and skip the boring bits. And audioblogging takes that power of choice away. Your listeners become a passive audience - they have no power to skim, they can't skip the boring parts, they can't link or excerpt your post effectively. Your post becomes invisible to Google and other search engines. And anyone who has a hearing problem, or a dialup account, or doesn't speak your language too well, anyone who is trying to surf your site from the office, or from an Internet cafe - well, they're just plain out of luck.
(If you wanna cheat and not listen all the way through, the URL to the transcript he gives at the end (he triumphantly asserts the 'txt' extension) is http://www.idlewords.com/audio-manifesto.txt)
This isn't hard to do already; Mapquest had it as a built-in feature for a while but they took it off. I think it was in part because the fact is that, while cool, satellite photos really aren't that useful for utilitarian things that people use Google Local and Mapquest for.
I had the same question. The answer is that the four-dimensional space is curved, and the objects attempt to follow a four-dimensional straight line path, but since the space is curved, the path is curved.
(There is an answer, or at least an answer on a satisfactory level. This question is not as meaningless as the other poster suggests.)
(Speaking as an athiest pursuing a physics degree who has no patience for things like creationism)
Despite the name, I've found the Christian Science Monitor to be quite consistently intelligent and unbiased regarding science and news in general. Certainly better than most news/commentary sources on the web.
What I'm saying is that we've had proof of concept of this for 40 years. I'm still all in favor for the benefits privatization will in theory bring. I just wanted to point out that on the technical side this isn't necessarially a useful baby step, as far as a lot of the interesting stuff -- hotels and the like -- are concerned.
And yes, a space elevator seems like the best solution to me, too. Hopefully in my lifetime.
It seems to me the big problem here is getting into orbit, which is where anything interesting will happen (i.e. hotels).
This thing is only going a fraction of the required speed. More speed = more fuel = more fuel to carry that fuel = disposable tanks = too big to be carried by a plane = ground launch = a Saturn V.
I don't really see how this is a big jump on the technical side as far as getting us usefully into space goes. I want a space hotel as much as the next guy, and I'm young enough to want it for me. I'm just wondering how we're gonna get from here to there.
I used to use CNN.com. Now I just look at the top stories on Google News and go wherever it sends me. CNN is probably not happy about this. The bigger half of the news companies don't want increased competition. Google News is bad for brand loyalty.
Imagine if there was some service that told everyone what the best cell phone deal was at any given moment (pedantry: for your particular calling needs. just an example.) All the cell companies but one would be unhappy with it;)
It's true that running isn't necessarially a jock sport, I have geek friends who run. But the aforementioned guy is quite clearly a jock who runs. Not thin and wiry or anything.
I did the same thing last year. Got some great shots of the campus from the air, I'll do it again soon.
But I submit that you can in fact be a jock geek. I did the kite photography with a physics major friend of mine. He's a big guy who wears sleeveless T-shirts, lifts weights constantly, lives with football players, and runs for the college. And he helps me out on my quantum mechanics homework.
No. This would not be secure because selecting one-time pads out of a few thousand billion is not a difficult problem. The secret police just try every starting digit on the incoming stream as the start of the pad. Linear time.
And if you make it long enough to try to make that impractical, they have time to break your weak encryption.
Some people have suggested that no one would have the space to save all the incoming data. But I think this is an impractical assumption. I wanted it to be true because it would allow for a nifty method of verifying timestamps on files without any uploading anywhere required (other story), but I decided it was too easy for the secret police to have lots and lots of drive space.
However, your idea in general has merit. The contents of a sent file is not the only information the secret police might want -- where and how large the file is also reveals information. A solution: Constantly stream usually random data between you. Sometimes the data is a coded message. Encryption is still easy for you (barely enough that you can go faster than the data stream speed) but hard for the secret police. Stream the data fast enough that they are on the other side of the line from you and they can determine nothing.
That's really the only thing that pisses me off in the '97-ish special editions. So I looked around just now to find his justification for it:
On altering the cantina confrontation between Han Solo and Greedo
It was always meant that Greedo fired first. In the original film you don't get that too well. But in terms of Han's character, I didn't like the fact that when he was introduced the first thing he did is just gun somebody down in cold blood. That wasn't what was meant to be there. The other issue is a perception issue. We had three different versions of that shot: one he fires very close to when Han fires, one was three frames later, one was three frames later. And we sort of looked at it and tried to figure out which one would be perceivable, but wouldn't look corny. It's very hard to do that, because, I mean, obviously if you know the film real well and you're looking for that you see it. If you don't know the film very well and you're just watching the movie, it almost goes right by you. People don't perceive what's happened there, even now. So, it's trying to find that medium ground, and it's always this way in film, of what can the majority of the audience perceive and what can't they perceive. I like fast-paced movies--accusations have been made about this--and I like things to go by in an almost surreal way. So I'm caught between doing things that work for me--really understanding the scenes and understanding what's going on--and the audience, which I know is looking at something for the first time, and things go by in a very different way. So, there's always the conflict about where you draw the line. Perhaps I should have done it two frames sooner.
(I'm new here so I don't know if this has been posted on every spam thread)
It seems to me that the only decent technical solution to this is something like Hash Cash, which has the end result of restricting the amount of mail a computer can send per unit of time . . . at least, it would be a good addition to any existing measures. How practical is this? Would it scale properly? Etc.
"You made a comparison [Bill Gates' evil to all other evils"
Bullshit.
I said he used the most unethical and slimy business tactics
Actually, you left out the word 'business'. Quibble, I know, but it changes the meaning. So there, the word "most" makes it an implicit comparison to all other evils. That is what people took issue with. I guess you didn't mean to say that, but that's how it was read. That's all I'm pointing out.
Yeah, I saw that after I sent. I switch east and west in conversation a lot -- same with right and left. Just a problem in my brain's language generation code; bug report #33804 has been filed and is pending review.
Slashdot Mirror
wrong. a) if you want velocities that slow, for most of your flight you're gonna be going even slower than your landing so ignore drag for now. You need to figure out the size of the balloon to provide a force resisting gravity for your dude. Helium will give a lift of something like 1.13 kg/m^3 around sea level at stp (iirc, my little bro asked me when he was building a balloon). So do some math, what radius gives you (1.13)(4/3)pi*r^3=100? Something around 2.5 I guess. If your radius is much bigger than 2.5 meters you'll float away. Now, if you get down to say 1.3 meters, where (again just by estimating) you'd have like half the bouyancy force, you're still talking about high impact speeds. You need to get pretty close to neutral weight if you wanna not hit hard. 1m/s is pretty slow, you can handle an impact of maybe 7m/s without broken bones too much, that's the highest I've fallen from. But 12m/s is the point where the fall is more likely fatal than not, a height of about 7m.
Anyway to summarize, you need to get down to a speed where drag force is negligable so ignore that. You need a balloon radius that gets your effective weight pretty close to 0, then go a little smaller but not too much. You get an upper limit on size by solving (1.13)(4/3)pi*r^3=mass, and the balloon size will be between 2 and 3 meters.
If the universe IS changing, we'll never know from these clocks since they would also be subject to change.
Understandable first reaction but not at all true.
For one, that's saying that we can't measure changes in fundamental constants AT ALL, which isn't true. We could find that our value for G has changed over time in the fifth decimal place.
All these researchers are syaing is that we can now look for changes three decimal places further than we used to.
(Regarding the idea of measuring the change of something fundamental -- there's no reason that the effect you're measuring has to be an effect relevant to the workings of your clocks -- I can measure the fundamental constant, say, G (strength of gravity, by timing how long things take to fall), using, say, a spring-based clock (or a light clock) that is in no way dependent on G. If G changes, I'll see the change. Just because a constant is fundamental doesn't mean it has an effect on the relevant operation of my measuring device.)
http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php?page _id=15&sortby=popular-&vendors%5B%5D=0&popup1%5B%5 D=0&popup1_attr_id%5B%5D=1022&popup2%5B%5D=0&popup 2_attr_id%5B%5D=389&popup3%5B%5D=16%3A301&popup3_a ttr_id%5B%5D=301&popup4%5B%5D=0&popup4_attr_id%5B% 5D=391&popup5%5B%5D=0&lo_p=0&hi_p=0&form_keyword=& sortby=priceA
A dozen or so monitors that can do that resolution for between $80 and $220.
That's pretty misleading, too -- everything you've said is common knowledge from a different angle.
Under Bush's tax plan, the rich pay a higher percentage of their income than the non-rich (as well a a higher actual dollar amount, of course).
That's a progressive income tax, a pretty universal feature of modern income tax. The question is, does the Bush plan tilt it MORE toward or away from the rich than previous plans? (draw some graphs, it's fun). As far as I know, he taxes them less. Is this good? Debatable.
The Bush tax cut policy was really aimed at the middle class: most of those who had their taxes reduced are middle class.
Of course; there are more members of the middle class, so more of them had their taxes reduced. This is trivial.
I don't know much about economics and I honestly don't know what the best system is. But I try to stay clear on how things are now and what the options for change are.
And it's that rule that makes people, me included, so edgy about the use. But I was converted by some bunch of grammar nazis who had books. *shrug* I was really hoping you'd find a reference for me so I could settle it one way or another. Flames are a wonderful research tool sometimes ;) instead of asking the question, you assert what you think is false and people give references to disprove you.
I may be wrong, but I was told by some important-sounding people many years back that although it defies logic, apostrophes are appropriate in plural usage. A quick Google reference verifies that this has worked it's way into modern usage to the point that its a new rule. You might want to check an official style manual on that one, because I think that it might be right.
And yes, my "it's" and "its" were just to make you cringe. But it hurt me more than it hurt you.
(If you wanna cheat and not listen all the way through, the URL to the transcript he gives at the end (he triumphantly asserts the 'txt' extension) is http://www.idlewords.com/audio-manifesto.txt)
This isn't hard to do already; Mapquest had it as a built-in feature for a while but they took it off. I think it was in part because the fact is that, while cool, satellite photos really aren't that useful for utilitarian things that people use Google Local and Mapquest for.
I had the same question. The answer is that the four-dimensional space is curved, and the objects attempt to follow a four-dimensional straight line path, but since the space is curved, the path is curved.
(There is an answer, or at least an answer on a satisfactory level. This question is not as meaningless as the other poster suggests.)
(Speaking as an athiest pursuing a physics degree who has no patience for things like creationism)
Despite the name, I've found the Christian Science Monitor to be quite consistently intelligent and unbiased regarding science and news in general. Certainly better than most news/commentary sources on the web.
What I'm saying is that we've had proof of concept of this for 40 years. I'm still all in favor for the benefits privatization will in theory bring. I just wanted to point out that on the technical side this isn't necessarially a useful baby step, as far as a lot of the interesting stuff -- hotels and the like -- are concerned.
And yes, a space elevator seems like the best solution to me, too. Hopefully in my lifetime.
minor pedantic correction:
645 teraBITS, not bytes. 81 teraBYTES.
(about 100,000 700MB movies)
It seems to me the big problem here is getting into orbit, which is where anything interesting will happen (i.e. hotels).
This thing is only going a fraction of the required speed. More speed = more fuel = more fuel to carry that fuel = disposable tanks = too big to be carried by a plane = ground launch = a Saturn V.
I don't really see how this is a big jump on the technical side as far as getting us usefully into space goes. I want a space hotel as much as the next guy, and I'm young enough to want it for me. I'm just wondering how we're gonna get from here to there.
Yay for privatization, I just hope it works.
Clearly, the solution is 1TB of email explaining how to make our penises grow fast enough to keep up.
I used to use CNN.com. Now I just look at the top stories on Google News and go wherever it sends me. CNN is probably not happy about this. The bigger half of the news companies don't want increased competition. Google News is bad for brand loyalty.
;)
Imagine if there was some service that told everyone what the best cell phone deal was at any given moment (pedantry: for your particular calling needs. just an example.) All the cell companies but one would be unhappy with it
It's true that running isn't necessarially a jock sport, I have geek friends who run. But the aforementioned guy is quite clearly a jock who runs. Not thin and wiry or anything.
I googled it, and indeed someone has created Quake: Text Mode. There's also Unreal Tournament.
I did the same thing last year. Got some great shots of the campus from the air, I'll do it again soon.
But I submit that you can in fact be a jock geek. I did the kite photography with a physics major friend of mine. He's a big guy who wears sleeveless T-shirts, lifts weights constantly, lives with football players, and runs for the college. And he helps me out on my quantum mechanics homework.
They do exist.
No. This would not be secure because selecting one-time pads out of a few thousand billion is not a difficult problem. The secret police just try every starting digit on the incoming stream as the start of the pad. Linear time.
And if you make it long enough to try to make that impractical, they have time to break your weak encryption.
Some people have suggested that no one would have the space to save all the incoming data. But I think this is an impractical assumption. I wanted it to be true because it would allow for a nifty method of verifying timestamps on files without any uploading anywhere required (other story), but I decided it was too easy for the secret police to have lots and lots of drive space.
However, your idea in general has merit. The contents of a sent file is not the only information the secret police might want -- where and how large the file is also reveals information. A solution: Constantly stream usually random data between you. Sometimes the data is a coded message. Encryption is still easy for you (barely enough that you can go faster than the data stream speed) but hard for the secret police. Stream the data fast enough that they are on the other side of the line from you and they can determine nothing.
I guess. All this might be wrong.
That's really the only thing that pisses me off in the '97-ish special editions. So I looked around just now to find his justification for it:
0 1.HTM )
On altering the cantina confrontation between Han Solo and Greedo
It was always meant that Greedo fired first. In the original film you don't get that too well. But in terms of Han's character, I didn't like the fact that when he was introduced the first thing he did is just gun somebody down in cold blood. That wasn't what was meant to be there. The other issue is a perception issue. We had three different versions of that shot: one he fires very close to when Han fires, one was three frames later, one was three frames later. And we sort of looked at it and tried to figure out which one would be perceivable, but wouldn't look corny. It's very hard to do that, because, I mean, obviously if you know the film real well and you're looking for that you see it. If you don't know the film very well and you're just watching the movie, it almost goes right by you. People don't perceive what's happened there, even now. So, it's trying to find that medium ground, and it's always this way in film, of what can the majority of the audience perceive and what can't they perceive. I like fast-paced movies--accusations have been made about this--and I like things to go by in an almost surreal way. So I'm caught between doing things that work for me--really understanding the scenes and understanding what's going on--and the audience, which I know is looking at something for the first time, and things go by in a very different way. So, there's always the conflict about where you draw the line. Perhaps I should have done it two frames sooner.
(source: http://industrycentral.net/director_interviews/GL
Good question.
(I'm new here so I don't know if this has been posted on every spam thread)
It seems to me that the only decent technical solution to this is something like Hash Cash, which has the end result of restricting the amount of mail a computer can send per unit of time . . . at least, it would be a good addition to any existing measures. How practical is this? Would it scale properly? Etc.
They brought up those comparisons because they thought you were saying "there is no 'practice' more evil than his."
That. Is. All. I. Am. Trying. To. Say. Stop. Putting. Words. In. My. Mouth.
"You made a comparison [Bill Gates' evil to all other evils"
Bullshit.
I said he used the most unethical and slimy business tactics
Actually, you left out the word 'business'. Quibble, I know, but it changes the meaning. So there, the word "most" makes it an implicit comparison to all other evils. That is what people took issue with. I guess you didn't mean to say that, but that's how it was read. That's all I'm pointing out.
Yeah, I saw that after I sent. I switch east and west in conversation a lot -- same with right and left. Just a problem in my brain's language generation code; bug report #33804 has been filed and is pending review.