Sure, the signals have travelled a long way. Now, would you like to be the entity at the other end trying to pick out our signals from all the other noise that exists in the Universe?
Since the power of the signal is reduced by the square of the distance, when we start talking about interstellar distances, (forget intergalactic distances), that number is so large as to make our signals virtually undetectable. The CLOSEST star is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. Convert to meters, we have approximately: 4 * 10^16 meters. Squared gives us a power reduction of 1.6 x 10^33.
So, if we sent a terawatt signal, 1x10^12 watts, even if there was someone at Proxima Centauri to listen, they would have to hear a signal that's 6x10^-22 watts. Which is pretty hard to pick out from any background noise.
You have a problem in your argument... Taking money through taxes is not stealing. You might not like it, and you may not agree with it, but it isn't illegal.
Also, taxes aren't a bad thing. They pay for all sorts of things like roads, emergency services, weather radars and a bunch of other things that you don't think are important - until you don't have them.
You don't need what most people consider mathematics to program well. Yes, you are using logic, and logic is math, but most people don't think of it that way.
In the same way, most people don't consider cooking to be chemistry, but it is. Does this mean that all cooks should be good chemists or vice-versa? No.
The person anonymizes themselves using proxies and creates a fake facebook or myspace profile. They use your name and general location: they include some nasty message/text that would be seen as highly negative.
You don't even need a proxy. Use a public terminal at the local library.
considering the amount of data Google processes on a regular basis, a 9 Month backlog isn't that unreasonable.
Sure it is. Why? Because they are collecting data continuously and if it takes a long time to process what they've collected, more data is backlogged, and it keeps spiraling out of control. In fact, if it takes more than 24 hours to process 1 day of data, the backlog will increase without limit. The proper thing to do is to apply proper anonymization to the information immediately so you don't have to worry about it. There are plenty of methods that allow you to anonymize important information while retaining enough data for analysis. Here's one paper [Warning: PDF] on the subject.
Does your phone company, who own the systems that your phone calls go through, have the right to let their operators listen in on your conversations and interject with witty remarks every now and then?
I live in the U.S. and am offended by the implications in your statement. Of course they have the right! How else would they find the terrorists?
It's not less than 1%. And if it is that does not bode well for the field.
Actually, there was an article in Science that there was not a single peer-reviewed paper that claimed global warming isn't happening. The author reviewed all the papers in the appropriate journals and while many made no claims about why it was happening, they all agreed it is happening. So it is less than 1%. I'm curious why this doesn't that bode well for the field?
Because if we're warming up, why is 1938 was the hotest year on record? Why is it after WW2 we entered the coldest non-ice age period, ever recorded?
This isn't true. You might be thinking 1934, which was the 2nd or 3rd, depending on how you interpret the data. However, more telling, is that the last 9 years are all in the top 25 warmest years.
I don't think CO2 production is bad. I know it is. But for the right reasons. It causes acidic water. But that's where it ends. It does not warm. It probably does not cool.
I would like an autographed copy of your book - the one where you rewrite physics and chemistry. The visible light from the sun can travel through CO2 quite well, the infrared radiation from the Earth cooling at night can't. As CO2 increases, less energy can radiate off the planet into space, resulting in more energy in the system. More energy = higher temperature. It's the same idea as an x-ray, visible light can't go through your body, but a higher frequency wave can.
Face it, you started off like idiots, you're going to end like idiots. Stupid blunts like the hockey stick projection by a UN official cannot be forgiven.
But march right out if you think we'll keep buying your peddled crap when you change the meaning a bit to keep in line with what's happening.
Actually, forgiveness has no place in science. That's why we have peer review and independent confirmation of results. You can have wrong theories and wrong projections as much as you want. The only "unforgiveable" is false data and isn't forgiven. However, being wrong is OK because that's how science is supposed to work. You create a theory, test it, and try to prove/disprove your theory. Based on your results, you come up with a new theory, or modify your old one, and try again. We have more climate data, so we alter our models to reflect this new information.
They do collect all that information. They know how long it takes someone to leave the platform, how long to turn, everything. While the networks don't focus on that data, if you listen to some of the commentators, they will reference that data during the race.
I don't know for certain, but I'm assuming all timing data would be made available to a country's olympic committee, which would then make it available to the coaches and athletes.
Actually, the homeowner's policy will only cover liability on the property and I doubt they will host a 60 person LAN party in their house.
What they would want is a PLUP - A personal liability umbrella policy. I got one for $1 million that costs under $80 a year. Plus it gave me a deduction on my car insurance.
You can get more points for a difficult routine that you perform with a few steps/wobbles than a simpler routing you perform perfectly. So, a double backflip with a twist, ending with a step will give you more points that a "regular" double backflip without a step.
Sure, that's what they claim. However, since cells are actually "analog" how do you simulate them in a digital environment? So you give each important characteristic 256 discrete values? 512? How many is "enough"? Even small rounding errors can have huge impacts on overall results. So, they might be able to perform a simulation of 22 million neurons and 11 billion synapses, but these are just an approximation.
It reminds me of this joke:
A racehorse owner hires a biologist, a chemist, and a physicist to
improve the performance of his stock. Months later, he returns.
First the chemist says, "I have devised a new, undetectable drug that
will improve the acceleration of your horses by 20%, admittedly while
decreasing their lifespan by approximately the same amount."
The biologist says, "I can't help you at the moment, but I have
devised a selective breeding program which should ensure that you have
a stable full of winners to pass on to your children."
The physicist turns around from his blackboard, raises one finger, and
says, "Consider a spherical horse..."
Seriously now, WTF? Why is everyone acting like they've never had a BSOD on windows, a failed harddrive, a driver problem, or a vendor discontinue support?
However, the cloud doesn't make these problems go away. If I have a failed hard drive, I still have downtime while I go find a different machine to use or repair the one I have.
Also remember that it isn't just the servers you have to worry about. There are a lot of miles of fiber out there and a lot of idiots with back-hoes.
WARNING: The following will be a really, really bad car analogy.
So, think of your metabolism as a car engine running. Your metabolism when you are doing nothing, is like the car idling. When you decide to take part in exercise, you have to raise your metabolism to meet the extra demand. This is like increasing the RPMs on your engine when you actually want to drive forward.
The big difference is your car only has 1 engine. Your body has an engine that adapts to the environment, demand placed on it and the fuel you give it. So, an athlete might have the equivalent of a Dodge Viper engine, while a casual athlete has a V6, and a couch potato has an engine from a Geo Metro. If you take all three people and have them sit there, and eat the same number of calories, the athlete will gain less weight than the couch potato. Why? A Viper engine at idle still consumes more fuel than a Geo Metro idling. The athlete's body has adapted so it can deliver a lot of energy on demand, so it needs more calories to maintain baseline activity.
Now, here's where the adaptive part comes in. Your body has essentially one goal - to keep your brain alive. To do this, it will adapt to hostile environments by trying to consume fewer calories for other functions and build up reserves. So, if you have the Geo Metro engine and decide to go on a starvation diet, your body realizes that it isn't fuel efficient enough and, over a few weeks, will change it's metabolism to be a Vespa scooter engine. In addition, it will start throwing things out the window to reduce weight so it doesn't need to expend as much fuel to drive at the given speed - this is losing muscle which costs the body calories to keep around. So now, if you go back to your baseline diet, you gain more weight since your body is consuming fewer calories at rest. In addition, your body worries about the availability of gas stations, (since there has been a gas shortage), so it decides to carry a few few extra gas cans in the trunk - except it is extra fat, not gas cans. This is why going on and off diets causes people to gain weight - they slow down their metabolism and scare their body into storing energy reserves - exactly the opposite behavior of what they want.
So, if you do eat fewer calories than you burn, then you will lose weight, since you have to use gas from the gas cans in your trunk, but you are also destroying your ability to burn the excess calories on the days you do eat more than you burn. In addition, since your body is downsizing your engine, you will have less strength, less speed, less ability to heal and will have reduced abilities overall. Now, is this going to be worse than being 100-200 pounds overweight? Probably not. But it won't be as good as someone who does things slowly, with an eye on convincing their body to maintain a larger "engine". To avoid some of the engine downsizing, don't "under-eat" by more than 200-300 calories a day so you don't "scare" your car (body). If you want to increase the size of your engine, stress your body a little bit more, and in different way every day. Remember, your body wants to keep your brain alive and it doesn't know you aren't running from a sabre-toothed tiger when you hit the treadmill. So, if your body thinks you need to be able to run a 7:00 min/mile to avoid predators, it will adapt to do that - but it will take time.
This is why I really hate the physics diet. Yes, it is accurate that if you expend more calories than you eat, you will lose weight. It is also true that it is easier to monitor calorie intake than energy expended since it's hard to measure overall metabolic rate. However, you are destroying your bodies ability to perform physical activities and, by extension, it has some impact on your mental abilities. If you don't believe me, eat normally, run a few flights of stairs as fast as you can, (time it), and take some sort of mental test. A week or two later, under-eat for a few days so you are almost always
Again, I'm talking small robots that weigh in at a few ounces just big enough to mount a small camera, light and battery power for a few minutes. Think more in terms of a remote controlled helicopter than a large rover of some sort.
Oh, and I have "backpacked". I was Marine infantry for 4 years and got to drag around a lot of heavy gear and you didn't worry about weight - you worried about what you needed. Want to know what really sucks? Try doing a field op where they give you a 25% casualty rate and you have to carry the "injured" Marines and all their gear 3 miles. I was hiking with 225 pounds - my weapon, gear, backpack and a 180 pound guy - half the time, and 100 pounds - my weapon, gear, pack, and the injured guy's weapon, gear and pack - the other half. It's slow, but doable.
I've also climbed a rope, rock climbed and dragged my way up a few mountains. No, I haven't done any real caving, but I have done a lot of other endurance activities and, except in races, you don't have to worry about every ounce. It can be a lot nicer when you aren't loaded down, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
Off-topic perhaps, but wouldn't that be Terminator exoskeletons? I know they have a flesh covering when they are sent to infiltrate human strongholds, or sent back in time, but they don't always have the covering. In Terminator 2, when they flash to the future, we often see terminators walking around without the flesh covering. We can theorize that the flesh covering is used only on the infiltrator and time travel models, but is not standard issue - similar to a sniper's ghilly suit.
So, the flesh is not an integral part of a terminator, but a useful "add on", and it would seem that since all of the terminators vital parts are housed within the skeleton, this would make it more of an exoskeleton instead of an endoskeleton.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, the signals have travelled a long way. Now, would you like to be the entity at the other end trying to pick out our signals from all the other noise that exists in the Universe?
Since the power of the signal is reduced by the square of the distance, when we start talking about interstellar distances, (forget intergalactic distances), that number is so large as to make our signals virtually undetectable. The CLOSEST star is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. Convert to meters, we have approximately: 4 * 10^16 meters. Squared gives us a power reduction of 1.6 x 10^33.
So, if we sent a terawatt signal, 1x10^12 watts, even if there was someone at Proxima Centauri to listen, they would have to hear a signal that's 6x10^-22 watts. Which is pretty hard to pick out from any background noise.
You waive your rights when you purchase your ticket.
The proper response to this scenario would have been a call to the NCAA. They can handle it much better than a single faculty member.
The school is cheating. Sure, breaking rules for athletes may be widespread, but that doesn't make it right.
The sad thing is - I think this is insightful instead of funny.
You have a problem in your argument... Taking money through taxes is not stealing. You might not like it, and you may not agree with it, but it isn't illegal.
Also, taxes aren't a bad thing. They pay for all sorts of things like roads, emergency services, weather radars and a bunch of other things that you don't think are important - until you don't have them.
You don't need what most people consider mathematics to program well. Yes, you are using logic, and logic is math, but most people don't think of it that way.
In the same way, most people don't consider cooking to be chemistry, but it is. Does this mean that all cooks should be good chemists or vice-versa? No.
The person anonymizes themselves using proxies and creates a fake facebook or myspace profile. They use your name and general location: they include some nasty message/text that would be seen as highly negative.
You don't even need a proxy. Use a public terminal at the local library.
'Because soldiers are already trained to talk in clean, clear and formulaic ways, it would be a very small step to have them think that way.'
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
It's been a long time since I had as good a laugh as when I read that statement.
Not anymore. (No, it wasn't me.)
Ask.com has AskEraser. Here's the description.
considering the amount of data Google processes on a regular basis, a 9 Month backlog isn't that unreasonable.
Sure it is. Why? Because they are collecting data continuously and if it takes a long time to process what they've collected, more data is backlogged, and it keeps spiraling out of control. In fact, if it takes more than 24 hours to process 1 day of data, the backlog will increase without limit. The proper thing to do is to apply proper anonymization to the information immediately so you don't have to worry about it. There are plenty of methods that allow you to anonymize important information while retaining enough data for analysis. Here's one paper [Warning: PDF] on the subject.
The story is Johnny Lingo's 8 cow wife. It has a lot of variations, but one of them can be found here.
Does your phone company, who own the systems that your phone calls go through, have the right to let their operators listen in on your conversations and interject with witty remarks every now and then?
I live in the U.S. and am offended by the implications in your statement. Of course they have the right! How else would they find the terrorists?
It's not less than 1%. And if it is that does not bode well for the field.
Actually, there was an article in Science that there was not a single peer-reviewed paper that claimed global warming isn't happening. The author reviewed all the papers in the appropriate journals and while many made no claims about why it was happening, they all agreed it is happening. So it is less than 1%. I'm curious why this doesn't that bode well for the field?
Because if we're warming up, why is 1938 was the hotest year on record? Why is it after WW2 we entered the coldest non-ice age period, ever recorded?
This isn't true. You might be thinking 1934, which was the 2nd or 3rd, depending on how you interpret the data. However, more telling, is that the last 9 years are all in the top 25 warmest years.
I don't think CO2 production is bad. I know it is. But for the right reasons. It causes acidic water. But that's where it ends. It does not warm. It probably does not cool.
I would like an autographed copy of your book - the one where you rewrite physics and chemistry. The visible light from the sun can travel through CO2 quite well, the infrared radiation from the Earth cooling at night can't. As CO2 increases, less energy can radiate off the planet into space, resulting in more energy in the system. More energy = higher temperature. It's the same idea as an x-ray, visible light can't go through your body, but a higher frequency wave can.
Face it, you started off like idiots, you're going to end like idiots. Stupid blunts like the hockey stick projection by a UN official cannot be forgiven.
But march right out if you think we'll keep buying your peddled crap when you change the meaning a bit to keep in line with what's happening.
Actually, forgiveness has no place in science. That's why we have peer review and independent confirmation of results. You can have wrong theories and wrong projections as much as you want. The only "unforgiveable" is false data and isn't forgiven. However, being wrong is OK because that's how science is supposed to work. You create a theory, test it, and try to prove/disprove your theory. Based on your results, you come up with a new theory, or modify your old one, and try again. We have more climate data, so we alter our models to reflect this new information.
They do collect all that information. They know how long it takes someone to leave the platform, how long to turn, everything. While the networks don't focus on that data, if you listen to some of the commentators, they will reference that data during the race.
I don't know for certain, but I'm assuming all timing data would be made available to a country's olympic committee, which would then make it available to the coaches and athletes.
Actually, the homeowner's policy will only cover liability on the property and I doubt they will host a 60 person LAN party in their house.
What they would want is a PLUP - A personal liability umbrella policy. I got one for $1 million that costs under $80 a year. Plus it gave me a deduction on my car insurance.
It's the new scoring system.
You can get more points for a difficult routine that you perform with a few steps/wobbles than a simpler routing you perform perfectly. So, a double backflip with a twist, ending with a step will give you more points that a "regular" double backflip without a step.
Sure, that's what they claim. However, since cells are actually "analog" how do you simulate them in a digital environment? So you give each important characteristic 256 discrete values? 512? How many is "enough"? Even small rounding errors can have huge impacts on overall results. So, they might be able to perform a simulation of 22 million neurons and 11 billion synapses, but these are just an approximation.
It reminds me of this joke:
A racehorse owner hires a biologist, a chemist, and a physicist to improve the performance of his stock. Months later, he returns. First the chemist says, "I have devised a new, undetectable drug that will improve the acceleration of your horses by 20%, admittedly while decreasing their lifespan by approximately the same amount." The biologist says, "I can't help you at the moment, but I have devised a selective breeding program which should ensure that you have a stable full of winners to pass on to your children." The physicist turns around from his blackboard, raises one finger, and says, "Consider a spherical horse..."
Seriously now, WTF? Why is everyone acting like they've never had a BSOD on windows, a failed harddrive, a driver problem, or a vendor discontinue support?
However, the cloud doesn't make these problems go away. If I have a failed hard drive, I still have downtime while I go find a different machine to use or repair the one I have.
Also remember that it isn't just the servers you have to worry about. There are a lot of miles of fiber out there and a lot of idiots with back-hoes.
The reason is your body is adaptive.
WARNING: The following will be a really, really bad car analogy.
So, think of your metabolism as a car engine running. Your metabolism when you are doing nothing, is like the car idling. When you decide to take part in exercise, you have to raise your metabolism to meet the extra demand. This is like increasing the RPMs on your engine when you actually want to drive forward.
The big difference is your car only has 1 engine. Your body has an engine that adapts to the environment, demand placed on it and the fuel you give it. So, an athlete might have the equivalent of a Dodge Viper engine, while a casual athlete has a V6, and a couch potato has an engine from a Geo Metro. If you take all three people and have them sit there, and eat the same number of calories, the athlete will gain less weight than the couch potato. Why? A Viper engine at idle still consumes more fuel than a Geo Metro idling. The athlete's body has adapted so it can deliver a lot of energy on demand, so it needs more calories to maintain baseline activity.
Now, here's where the adaptive part comes in. Your body has essentially one goal - to keep your brain alive. To do this, it will adapt to hostile environments by trying to consume fewer calories for other functions and build up reserves. So, if you have the Geo Metro engine and decide to go on a starvation diet, your body realizes that it isn't fuel efficient enough and, over a few weeks, will change it's metabolism to be a Vespa scooter engine. In addition, it will start throwing things out the window to reduce weight so it doesn't need to expend as much fuel to drive at the given speed - this is losing muscle which costs the body calories to keep around. So now, if you go back to your baseline diet, you gain more weight since your body is consuming fewer calories at rest. In addition, your body worries about the availability of gas stations, (since there has been a gas shortage), so it decides to carry a few few extra gas cans in the trunk - except it is extra fat, not gas cans. This is why going on and off diets causes people to gain weight - they slow down their metabolism and scare their body into storing energy reserves - exactly the opposite behavior of what they want.
So, if you do eat fewer calories than you burn, then you will lose weight, since you have to use gas from the gas cans in your trunk, but you are also destroying your ability to burn the excess calories on the days you do eat more than you burn. In addition, since your body is downsizing your engine, you will have less strength, less speed, less ability to heal and will have reduced abilities overall. Now, is this going to be worse than being 100-200 pounds overweight? Probably not. But it won't be as good as someone who does things slowly, with an eye on convincing their body to maintain a larger "engine". To avoid some of the engine downsizing, don't "under-eat" by more than 200-300 calories a day so you don't "scare" your car (body). If you want to increase the size of your engine, stress your body a little bit more, and in different way every day. Remember, your body wants to keep your brain alive and it doesn't know you aren't running from a sabre-toothed tiger when you hit the treadmill. So, if your body thinks you need to be able to run a 7:00 min/mile to avoid predators, it will adapt to do that - but it will take time.
This is why I really hate the physics diet. Yes, it is accurate that if you expend more calories than you eat, you will lose weight. It is also true that it is easier to monitor calorie intake than energy expended since it's hard to measure overall metabolic rate. However, you are destroying your bodies ability to perform physical activities and, by extension, it has some impact on your mental abilities. If you don't believe me, eat normally, run a few flights of stairs as fast as you can, (time it), and take some sort of mental test. A week or two later, under-eat for a few days so you are almost always
In other news...
Millions of gadgets have shutdown, or been damaged, due to overheating.
Classic metric/imperial mistake. You accidentally used 1000 pounds since there are 1000 kg in a tonne.
Do you work for NASA?
All it takes is...
FSF: "You have bad policies!!!"
Apple: "Please leave the store."
FSF: "No! You have bad policies!!!"
[Apple guy calls security - they show up 3 minutes later]
Security: "You are coming with us."
FSF: "Fine. I'll leave."
Security: "You don't have the freedom of that option. The police are on their way to arrest you for being a public nuisance."
FSF: "Can I call my mom?"
THE END
Again, I'm talking small robots that weigh in at a few ounces just big enough to mount a small camera, light and battery power for a few minutes. Think more in terms of a remote controlled helicopter than a large rover of some sort.
Oh, and I have "backpacked". I was Marine infantry for 4 years and got to drag around a lot of heavy gear and you didn't worry about weight - you worried about what you needed. Want to know what really sucks? Try doing a field op where they give you a 25% casualty rate and you have to carry the "injured" Marines and all their gear 3 miles. I was hiking with 225 pounds - my weapon, gear, backpack and a 180 pound guy - half the time, and 100 pounds - my weapon, gear, pack, and the injured guy's weapon, gear and pack - the other half. It's slow, but doable.
I've also climbed a rope, rock climbed and dragged my way up a few mountains. No, I haven't done any real caving, but I have done a lot of other endurance activities and, except in races, you don't have to worry about every ounce. It can be a lot nicer when you aren't loaded down, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
Off-topic perhaps, but wouldn't that be Terminator exoskeletons? I know they have a flesh covering when they are sent to infiltrate human strongholds, or sent back in time, but they don't always have the covering. In Terminator 2, when they flash to the future, we often see terminators walking around without the flesh covering. We can theorize that the flesh covering is used only on the infiltrator and time travel models, but is not standard issue - similar to a sniper's ghilly suit.
So, the flesh is not an integral part of a terminator, but a useful "add on", and it would seem that since all of the terminators vital parts are housed within the skeleton, this would make it more of an exoskeleton instead of an endoskeleton.
Just a thought and not meant as a troll.