In (a), you're assuming that this is a do or die. Either they will make it to shore, or they won't. In reality, the question isn't "is the planet going to die" it's "how badly is the planet going to die, and how badly has it already died". So yes you are right, either we can (b) start bailing (fixing the problem) or (actually the proper word here is AND, but you'd rather we forget that) we can take measurements to see how bad the damage is, how permanent the damage is, and how quickly we need to fix things.
We have what every reputable (non-political / lobby) scientist declares a problem or potential problem. If this is a true problem, we are constantly doing damage even now. You are advising that we double check previous findings before attempting to fix it, instead of attempting to fix it while double checking at the same time. Let me spell this out for you: If we try to fix it and it turns out not to be a problem, we lose billions or trillions of dollars (note: "lose" is of course not taking into account the reduced pollution which is a huge gain even if global warming doesn't exist). If we don't try to fix it while double checking, we lose the footing we need to combat the problem.
Here's another analogy. There is a colored plastic cup upside-down on a table. Underneath is either a mini-cupcake or termite digging into the table. Scientists hear scratching noises through the cup, but can't lift it. Either we fix the problem (smash the cup) which might ruin a cupcake if that is under it, however if it's a termite, we stop an infestation before it enters the table. If we wait around and double check our readings to confirm a termite, it will burrow into the table and squishing it will no longer be possible.
I'm left-handed, I use my middle finger to left-click, you insensitive clod!
You mean you don't set your mouse control to left handed? I mean, if you did, then wouldn't "left-click" be the right mouse button controlled by your index finger and "right-click" be the left mouse button controlled by your middle finger? If not, what's the left-handed mouse setting for?
Does it pop up messages reminding you that you're special and congradulating you for challenging adversity?:)
True charity is anonymous. Everything else is, to at least a minor extent, ego. That's not to say it's wrong to do, of course. Better give the millions to charity than to media companies, although your actions will have smiliar results.
Would it be possible with the new fangled IPV6 using "flows" (or whatever they're called) to essentially split the internet traffic up into two chunks.
1) Lots of data, latency not an issue
2) Less data, latency an issue
For example, with streaming video or streaming sound, it really doesn't matter if it comes in 1 second or even 2 seconds delayed, so put it over a high-bandwidth high-latency device such as a satellite. Also on this medium would be all regular uploads and downloads such as web surfing and file acquisition / distribution. Now if it needs to be interactive, latency is an issue. Anything interactive would go over land carriers (eventually all fiber optic I assume). Hopefully this is less data. Even real time multiplayer games would be able to find data that can be sent high-latency.
I don't have a kid. I'm basically still a kid of some sort (wait until I graduate college), but I think middle school is a little too early. I'd say keep a family computer around until high school, and keep it up to date enough that the kid won't be whining for something more powerful (it doesn't cost that much to keep a machine up to date). That was getting a lappy for your boy or girl is going to be less "a more powerful toy" and more a symbol of independence. Of course they won't be paying for it so it's not THAT independent.
Now if you're such a paranoid parent that you still want parental control of the Internet at high school age, it's easy enough to share the internet connection out of the family computer via wire or wireless, filtering pages through a firewall at the family computer (not perfect but helps). However, absolutely do not touch the kid's computer. If you did, there wouldn't be a point in getting it.
Escalation kills. What else matters? I don't care who has the weapons. If the weapons exist, people will die. There is no "right hands" for a weapon. I don't trust my country more than any other.
The existence of a weapon means the possibility of being killed by the weapon, regardless of all other considerations. The first person to make the weapon is responsible for any death ever caused by the escalation thereof. There is zero excuse.
If only one jackass is running, there is no race. Make a treaty against it. The world sanctions anyone who doesn't sign it or disobeys it. No country can survive with zero international trade, be it China, North Korea or my own US of A. It's time to fight for peace by taking prosperity from those who oppose it.
Isn't that like saying only one company is allowed to make pencils, and another to make pens, and those two companies will compete? They fight with the marker company and the crayon company too?
Yes it's from the simpsons. I grabbed the snpp, I guess I missed the last line. I thought it was obviously the simpsons. No one mentions it when they say the old overlords cliche (unless they use the "oblig. simpsons quote" cliche too). I just find the whole meeting funny. I think I have one of them later this week.
Redundant? Fine. Note to self: Do not go searching for a funny way to state what I know others will say. Do not do it more intelligently. Allow the people who are bitching to simply type out a message as fast as they can. It does not matter that when I started my message, none of theirs had been posted yet. Since they will beat me to pressing the button because I am putting thought into my post, I am redundant.
Exec 1: We at our company want a an attack name with attitude. It's edgy, it's "in your face." You've heard the expression "as easy as stealing from a baby"? Well this is an attack which makes it "eezzay!". Consistently and thoroughly.
CEO: So it's speculative, huh?
Exec 1: Oh, God, yes. We're talking about a totally outrageous paradigm.
Exec 2: Execuse me, but "speculative" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important? [backpedaling] Not that I'm accusing you of anything like that. [pause] I'm fired, aren't I?
CEO: Oh, yes.
CEO: The rest of you start thinking up a name for this funky attack. I dunno, something along the line of say... farming, only more dangerous and 1337.
It sounds like he's suggesting that developers work at home, develop open source, and pay their rent with what? fairy dust? good will?
Yeah they obviously have no clue how much fairy dust goes for these days. Incidentally I use pixie dust which is far cheaper, but I swear you'll never be able to tell the difference.
My stance is complete overhauls are often worth it. I'm not sure that a shuttle should fly again. There are cheaper and safer ways to get people in space and back.
Now I'm no expert on physics, or space stuff in general, but I'd like to think I have a good dose of common sense, so I'd like some serious replies. Given that we have a space station, why don't we have a reusable launch vehicle designed to bring up just people (with as much life support as possible). Aside from that, no payload. The goal of the craft is to take off, dock, and land, NOTHING else. Less weight means less energy at take-off means fewer things will go wrong.
Manned space vehicles for utility in space (moving things, perhaps exploring a bit) should be sent up as cargo (in a cargo flight, not a manned flight) and assembled in space (obviously as much automated as possible), which entry craft can also dock with. This would never need to survive an atmosphere, just the lack of it.
The ISS needs a hanger. By hanger I mean open-air (no pun intended) is fine, just the ability to look at an entry vehicle from every angle, and let people do walks from the space station. If this already exists, someone please tell me why the space shuttle is being repaired by the crew undocked? A solid metal movable platform with boot straps (or magnetic contacts for boots) would allow for slightly easier repair jobs.
Now, the difficulty I see is an entry vehicle getting stuck one way or another. I see a rapid response which can be sent from either ground or the space station as being a viable option. Most ideally, an entry vehicle should be able to survive a crash landing. By that, I mean if the electrical system is dead, it should be able to thrust itself towards Earth, and survive a no-electricity landing in one way or another (with no additional thrust).
There is so much good we could be doing in space, and we're just not doing it because of the money we waste blasting things into space inefficiently. Unless we're willing to invest in a modern wonder of the world (space elevator or a magnetic launching system), we need to cut our losses and make due with the technology we have. Seeing the amount of fuel it takes us to get people into space and all the material that can't be reused makes me sad.:-(
That said, I'm obviously a space fan. I'm very excited about the progress we're making, I just wish NASA would change course a bit.
Sorry, you lost me at orthography. While yes, I can read THAT word, you can throw plenty at me that I won't have a clue how to pronounce until someone tells me how the letters are pronounced in that particular word.
beer, cheer, neer? no, near!
Fine! near, wear/bear? err... just broke English
I can do at least 100 of this easily. No, you can't even be sure how to pronounce 'wear' the first time you see it, so no you are incorrect. Providing one example where I just happen to get it right because I am well versed in the phonetics-breaking "ph" sound (ironically in the word phonetics) cannot prove truth. However providing one counter example will prove it false. I'm sure you can find one word somewhere that even the most learned orthographist would not pronounce correctly. You might consider yourself an expert and you might be, but the fact of the matter is English pronunciation is completely arbitrary.
How is it that this process negates the lack of oxygen to the brain, allowing no damage to occur?
I believe the problem with freezing a person is that their blood crystalizes if not frozen fast enough, which still circulates. This rips your system to shreds. Can someone back me up at least partially on this?
Slashdot Mirror
I invented air because I was short of breath.
I'm assuming home grown food wouldn't have hormones and there would be no need to worry about diseases either.
"If you take a test tube of HIV"
I know it's implied but just for clarity: this is not a test tube of HIV. That would be very silly. It's a test tube of a liquid with HIV in it.
Don't get what I mean? How many HIV virii would it take to fill 1 mL?
I'm all into computers and stuff (naturally, I'm a Computer Engineer after all) but DAMN that's one lemony douche.
Insightful? Juvenile. Where's that mod option.
In (a), you're assuming that this is a do or die. Either they will make it to shore, or they won't. In reality, the question isn't "is the planet going to die" it's "how badly is the planet going to die, and how badly has it already died". So yes you are right, either we can (b) start bailing (fixing the problem) or (actually the proper word here is AND, but you'd rather we forget that) we can take measurements to see how bad the damage is, how permanent the damage is, and how quickly we need to fix things.
We have what every reputable (non-political / lobby) scientist declares a problem or potential problem. If this is a true problem, we are constantly doing damage even now. You are advising that we double check previous findings before attempting to fix it, instead of attempting to fix it while double checking at the same time. Let me spell this out for you: If we try to fix it and it turns out not to be a problem, we lose billions or trillions of dollars (note: "lose" is of course not taking into account the reduced pollution which is a huge gain even if global warming doesn't exist). If we don't try to fix it while double checking, we lose the footing we need to combat the problem.
Here's another analogy. There is a colored plastic cup upside-down on a table. Underneath is either a mini-cupcake or termite digging into the table. Scientists hear scratching noises through the cup, but can't lift it. Either we fix the problem (smash the cup) which might ruin a cupcake if that is under it, however if it's a termite, we stop an infestation before it enters the table. If we wait around and double check our readings to confirm a termite, it will burrow into the table and squishing it will no longer be possible.
I'm left-handed, I use my middle finger to left-click, you insensitive clod!
:)
You mean you don't set your mouse control to left handed? I mean, if you did, then wouldn't "left-click" be the right mouse button controlled by your index finger and "right-click" be the left mouse button controlled by your middle finger? If not, what's the left-handed mouse setting for?
Does it pop up messages reminding you that you're special and congradulating you for challenging adversity?
That's much easier! Here I was, chopping off people's middle fingers...
True charity is anonymous. Everything else is, to at least a minor extent, ego. That's not to say it's wrong to do, of course. Better give the millions to charity than to media companies, although your actions will have smiliar results.
Would it be possible with the new fangled IPV6 using "flows" (or whatever they're called) to essentially split the internet traffic up into two chunks.
1) Lots of data, latency not an issue
2) Less data, latency an issue
For example, with streaming video or streaming sound, it really doesn't matter if it comes in 1 second or even 2 seconds delayed, so put it over a high-bandwidth high-latency device such as a satellite. Also on this medium would be all regular uploads and downloads such as web surfing and file acquisition / distribution. Now if it needs to be interactive, latency is an issue. Anything interactive would go over land carriers (eventually all fiber optic I assume). Hopefully this is less data. Even real time multiplayer games would be able to find data that can be sent high-latency.
I don't have a kid. I'm basically still a kid of some sort (wait until I graduate college), but I think middle school is a little too early. I'd say keep a family computer around until high school, and keep it up to date enough that the kid won't be whining for something more powerful (it doesn't cost that much to keep a machine up to date). That was getting a lappy for your boy or girl is going to be less "a more powerful toy" and more a symbol of independence. Of course they won't be paying for it so it's not THAT independent.
Now if you're such a paranoid parent that you still want parental control of the Internet at high school age, it's easy enough to share the internet connection out of the family computer via wire or wireless, filtering pages through a firewall at the family computer (not perfect but helps). However, absolutely do not touch the kid's computer. If you did, there wouldn't be a point in getting it.
Almost, but not quite, entirely unlike unique.
Escalation kills. What else matters? I don't care who has the weapons. If the weapons exist, people will die. There is no "right hands" for a weapon. I don't trust my country more than any other.
The existence of a weapon means the possibility of being killed by the weapon, regardless of all other considerations. The first person to make the weapon is responsible for any death ever caused by the escalation thereof. There is zero excuse.
If only one jackass is running, there is no race. Make a treaty against it. The world sanctions anyone who doesn't sign it or disobeys it. No country can survive with zero international trade, be it China, North Korea or my own US of A. It's time to fight for peace by taking prosperity from those who oppose it.
Isn't that like saying only one company is allowed to make pencils, and another to make pens, and those two companies will compete? They fight with the marker company and the crayon company too?
Is this what competition now is?
ANFET? And here I am using PFET and NFET like a sucker.
*looking ovr the flowers*
It's ok, we giggle about them whenever they come!
Yes it's from the simpsons. I grabbed the snpp, I guess I missed the last line. I thought it was obviously the simpsons. No one mentions it when they say the old overlords cliche (unless they use the "oblig. simpsons quote" cliche too). I just find the whole meeting funny. I think I have one of them later this week.
Redundant? Fine. Note to self: Do not go searching for a funny way to state what I know others will say. Do not do it more intelligently. Allow the people who are bitching to simply type out a message as fast as they can. It does not matter that when I started my message, none of theirs had been posted yet. Since they will beat me to pressing the button because I am putting thought into my post, I am redundant.
Well excuse me. Go back to MTV.
Exec 1: We at our company want a an attack name with attitude. It's edgy, it's "in your face." You've heard the expression "as easy as stealing from a baby"? Well this is an attack which makes it "eezzay!". Consistently and thoroughly.
CEO: So it's speculative, huh?
Exec 1: Oh, God, yes. We're talking about a totally outrageous paradigm.
Exec 2: Execuse me, but "speculative" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important? [backpedaling] Not that I'm accusing you of anything like that. [pause] I'm fired, aren't I?
CEO: Oh, yes.
CEO: The rest of you start thinking up a name for this funky attack. I dunno, something along the line of say... farming, only more dangerous and 1337.
Exec 1: So, Pharming okay with everybody?
All: [reclining in their chairs] Yeah...
It sounds like he's suggesting that developers work at home, develop open source, and pay their rent with what? fairy dust? good will?
Yeah they obviously have no clue how much fairy dust goes for these days. Incidentally I use pixie dust which is far cheaper, but I swear you'll never be able to tell the difference.
My stance is complete overhauls are often worth it. I'm not sure that a shuttle should fly again. There are cheaper and safer ways to get people in space and back.
:-(
Now I'm no expert on physics, or space stuff in general, but I'd like to think I have a good dose of common sense, so I'd like some serious replies. Given that we have a space station, why don't we have a reusable launch vehicle designed to bring up just people (with as much life support as possible). Aside from that, no payload. The goal of the craft is to take off, dock, and land, NOTHING else. Less weight means less energy at take-off means fewer things will go wrong.
Manned space vehicles for utility in space (moving things, perhaps exploring a bit) should be sent up as cargo (in a cargo flight, not a manned flight) and assembled in space (obviously as much automated as possible), which entry craft can also dock with. This would never need to survive an atmosphere, just the lack of it.
The ISS needs a hanger. By hanger I mean open-air (no pun intended) is fine, just the ability to look at an entry vehicle from every angle, and let people do walks from the space station. If this already exists, someone please tell me why the space shuttle is being repaired by the crew undocked? A solid metal movable platform with boot straps (or magnetic contacts for boots) would allow for slightly easier repair jobs.
Now, the difficulty I see is an entry vehicle getting stuck one way or another. I see a rapid response which can be sent from either ground or the space station as being a viable option. Most ideally, an entry vehicle should be able to survive a crash landing. By that, I mean if the electrical system is dead, it should be able to thrust itself towards Earth, and survive a no-electricity landing in one way or another (with no additional thrust).
There is so much good we could be doing in space, and we're just not doing it because of the money we waste blasting things into space inefficiently. Unless we're willing to invest in a modern wonder of the world (space elevator or a magnetic launching system), we need to cut our losses and make due with the technology we have. Seeing the amount of fuel it takes us to get people into space and all the material that can't be reused makes me sad.
That said, I'm obviously a space fan. I'm very excited about the progress we're making, I just wish NASA would change course a bit.
640*480*3*30= 27,648,000 Mbits/sec
duh?
I'd pick cuba. Won't someone PLEASE think of the cigars.
Sorry, you lost me at orthography. While yes, I can read THAT word, you can throw plenty at me that I won't have a clue how to pronounce until someone tells me how the letters are pronounced in that particular word.
beer, cheer, neer? no, near!
Fine! near, wear/bear? err... just broke English
I can do at least 100 of this easily. No, you can't even be sure how to pronounce 'wear' the first time you see it, so no you are incorrect. Providing one example where I just happen to get it right because I am well versed in the phonetics-breaking "ph" sound (ironically in the word phonetics) cannot prove truth. However providing one counter example will prove it false. I'm sure you can find one word somewhere that even the most learned orthographist would not pronounce correctly. You might consider yourself an expert and you might be, but the fact of the matter is English pronunciation is completely arbitrary.
How is it that this process negates the lack of oxygen to the brain, allowing no damage to occur?
I believe the problem with freezing a person is that their blood crystalizes if not frozen fast enough, which still circulates. This rips your system to shreds. Can someone back me up at least partially on this?
Simple. You are unable to have sexual relations with this security protocol. I thought that obvious.