We spent 20 billion on something that is based on a failed model. How do we know that current calculations are correct?
We don't even know if the "particle physics" model is correct; in fact, we know that it is not correct. Particle Physics, like all models, has central assumptions and we haven't managed to explain them yet.
I've heard it said: "matter only behaves like particles when we're measuring it". We now have instrumentation that can measure things predicted by our model: predictions don't always come true. We learn from experience;-)
I think it's for the same reason why populations migrate or go to war: resources. It feels like we can't sustain ourselves here, so let's go somewhere else.
Sure, some people travel just for the fun of it but the end result is the same: people travel (in fact, it's a good survival strategy to have people travel "for fun" in case some unexpected catastrophe strike the remainder of the population)
The Berkman Center for Internet and Society will act as a subscriber to the CVN narrowcast and will make the recording publicly available for all non-commercial uses via its website
So we don't need to torrent it. Yet.
And it seems that they care what happens to recordings.
Ok, folks, I was not suggesting tethering the moon into geosynchronous orbit!
My thought was: the moon is in orbit around earth, it has loads of energy and is heavier than anything we might want to put into space: how about tethering something (directly or indirectly - not thought through this through. Gears?) to the moon and using all that energy to lift things from the earth?
How many tabs do you need to have open before you forget what they contain?
I would be pretty pissed if a "preview" feature caused a "responsiveness" hit, even if I disabled it.
Ctrl-TAB "result" can lag behind what my fingers have done cos Firefox tries to briefly render intermediate pages: I already find this annoying (hadn't really thought about it, though).
a universe in which an automaton could exist probably qualifies as one in which life could exist, regardless
That's my gut feeling on it, too.
So the automaton would be either:
recording, with us doing the actual observing on its return, or
forming its own conlusions, providing these (and hopefully some evidence, or at least an explanation!) on its return
It makes sense to that a universe that allows automatons to exist should be more likely to support life. I wonder is it a prerequisite? Again, not really knowing how to define "life" in a universe we haven't discovered yet.
"only universes suitable for life can contain observers"
Are you sure? Would some kind of automaton not be an observer? It may be possible to send a device to another universe (let's face it, there aren't many places we can go, anyway) - and that device might find that that universe isn't suitable for life. If not "send", maybe "bring into existence through strangeness of Physics", then it does its investigations.
Or am I missing something?
Not exactly, as it's horribly unfair to Microsoft.
I don't think GP was suggesting that Microsoft should be treated differently to any other (potential) government contractor. If someone wins a contract and produces crap, they are liable (depending on terms of contract, I suppose), get a bad reputation and are not hired again. "The market sorting it out", wouldn't you say?
Also, forcing government to make contracts more open should also force them to understand their own systems better: if it is known to all that they are stuck in an expensive contract simply because of vendor lock-in, that won't help popularity.
if the contract was released, then all of Microsoft's competitors know just how much they need to undercut Microsoft's price to make the sale on a huge (HUGE) contract.
Once. If this is a problem, then I suggest that the cause is the:
huge
contract
;-)
You're putting Microsoft at a competitive disadvantage. This is why most (if not all) government contracts are sealed in this manner.
I know what you meant, but it's possible to infer from what you said that the procedure is set-up to protect Microsoft and not, in fact, any holder of a government contract.
Signed
Someone who used to work for a government contractor
Slashdot Mirror
If that is true, how do you know what the concept of "volunteer" means?
If that is true, how do you know what the concept of "means" means?
You not only read it but also commented on it. It can't have been much of a failure. Next time try making your actions line up with your words.
You not only read it but also commented on it. It can't have been much of a failure. Next time try making your actions line up with your words.
You not only read it but also commented on it. It can't have been much of a failure. Next time try making your actions line up with your words.
You not only read it but also commented on it. It can't have been much of a failure. Next time try making your actions line up with your words.
You not only read it but also commented on it. It can't have been much of a failure. Next time try making your actions line up with your words.
The words line up quite nicely. Thanks, Slashcode!
you're going to look at it as more of a 1 in 10 chance of getting hit
...and you'll be right - on average ;-)
shouldn't we require better assurance than that?
We spent 20 billion on something that is based on a failed model. How do we know that current calculations are correct? ;-)
We don't even know if the "particle physics" model is correct; in fact, we know that it is not correct. Particle Physics, like all models, has central assumptions and we haven't managed to explain them yet.
I've heard it said: "matter only behaves like particles when we're measuring it". We now have instrumentation that can measure things predicted by our model: predictions don't always come true. We learn from experience
You give me one good reason why anyone has a natural right not to have their music/words/ideas copied.
In fact, if you're going to bring nature into it: nature, as we experience it, is rife with copying ;-)
I think it's for the same reason why populations migrate or go to war: resources. It feels like we can't sustain ourselves here, so let's go somewhere else.
Sure, some people travel just for the fun of it but the end result is the same: people travel (in fact, it's a good survival strategy to have people travel "for fun" in case some unexpected catastrophe strike the remainder of the population)
The thing about a mountaintop location is that you get year-round, continuous cold and a thin atmosphere.
And wind, lots of wind - how windy is Mars?
Viral plasticity trumps genetic engineering.
...on average ;-)
Hmmm - cheaper and greener too: 1 letter to Washington, rather than 1 letter to each citizen. Citizen pays in the end, of course...
*Forcing people to create music without pay is not theft*
...which is why record companies do it that way ;-)
The Berkman Center for Internet and Society will act as a subscriber to the CVN narrowcast and will make the recording publicly available for all non-commercial uses via its website
So we don't need to torrent it. Yet.
And it seems that they care what happens to recordings.
Nothing evolves like evolution!
flash make things pretty and managers don't want just information, they want it conveyed in the nicest way possible.
Flamebait
Here's the Irish Constitution online: it has only been in force since 1937 and is very readable.
Not sure the government knew this, but everyone smart working in tech did.
I'd say that the government put it on their "let's not think about that" list and concentrated on making money before the bubble burst.
Ok, folks, I was not suggesting tethering the moon into geosynchronous orbit!
My thought was: the moon is in orbit around earth, it has loads of energy and is heavier than anything we might want to put into space: how about tethering something (directly or indirectly - not thought through this through. Gears?) to the moon and using all that energy to lift things from the earth?
M e mento - even though I pasted the link, I didn't spot that! And, yes, I have seen the movie, too!
This would address two problems:
The more I think about it (haven't thought much ;-), the more I like it!
How many tabs do you need to have open before you forget what they contain?
I would be pretty pissed if a "preview" feature caused a "responsiveness" hit, even if I disabled it.
Ctrl-TAB "result" can lag behind what my fingers have done cos Firefox tries to briefly render intermediate pages: I already find this annoying (hadn't really thought about it, though).
There's a similar story about a guy called Sammy Jankis in Momento.
a universe in which an automaton could exist probably qualifies as one in which life could exist, regardless
That's my gut feeling on it, too.
So the automaton would be either:
forming its own conlusions, providing these (and hopefully some evidence, or at least an explanation!) on its return
It makes sense to that a universe that allows automatons to exist should be more likely to support life. I wonder is it a prerequisite? Again, not really knowing how to define "life" in a universe we haven't discovered yet.
"only universes suitable for life can contain observers"
Are you sure? Would some kind of automaton not be an observer? It may be possible to send a device to another universe (let's face it, there aren't many places we can go, anyway) - and that device might find that that universe isn't suitable for life. If not "send", maybe "bring into existence through strangeness of Physics", then it does its investigations.
Or am I missing something?
The excess energy can be used to power refrigerators :-)
Not exactly, as it's horribly unfair to Microsoft.
I don't think GP was suggesting that Microsoft should be treated differently to any other (potential) government contractor. If someone wins a contract and produces crap, they are liable (depending on terms of contract, I suppose), get a bad reputation and are not hired again. "The market sorting it out", wouldn't you say?
Also, forcing government to make contracts more open should also force them to understand their own systems better: if it is known to all that they are stuck in an expensive contract simply because of vendor lock-in, that won't help popularity.
if the contract was released, then all of Microsoft's competitors know just how much they need to undercut Microsoft's price to make the sale on a huge (HUGE) contract.
Once. If this is a problem, then I suggest that the cause is the:
You're putting Microsoft at a competitive disadvantage. This is why most (if not all) government contracts are sealed in this manner.
I know what you meant, but it's possible to infer from what you said that the procedure is set-up to protect Microsoft and not, in fact, any holder of a government contract.
Signed
Someone who used to work for a government contractor