I would reconsider your stance if I were you. If you truely negated the effects of gravity, then you would most certainly stop falling. You haven'y stopped gravity at all, you have simply surrounded yourself with fluid moving at the same speed, at the same acceleration. That can hardly be seen as negating gravity as the object is still hurtling toward earth at increasing speeds. Gravity is still effecting the object. All you are really witnessing is the negation of an opposing force to the force exerted by gravity. That I will agree to.
Perhaps I would make my case better if I argued that is is not Zero G as the Slashdot article title states. I would consider a typical space shuttle orbit as Low G, but that is an opinion, not a fact and it's a matter of perspective. The fact is, as others here have stated, there is no such thing as Zero G (that we know about). Gravity is an influence at any distance, in every corner of the universe. Simply wrapping an object in a blanket of air that moves at the same speed as the object is not zero G. Physics, on ALL levels, denies any truth in that.
This is not a low gravity experiment. Technically the best you could call it is a virtual low gravity. The water is actually within the same gravity well as the plane is and is falling to the earth at the same speed. The difference is that it is enclosed in an atmosphere that is also falling at the same speed, or being forced to fall at the same speed. This does not necessarily remove all of the effects of gravity upon the fluid. The results might be similar in a real low gravity environment, but not the same. All this experiment shows is what happens if you fall to the earth at the same speed as the water and air is not whipping around the the water blob to cause deformation. It is important to remember the difference here.
If you are falling into a Black hole and all of the material around you is falling in at the same speed, does that mean you have negated the effects of the Black hole?
"Yahoo has very little to gain from promoting spyware."
I apologize if I suggested or insinuated that Yahoo was promoting spyware or malware. I too, do not believe that is the case. I do however believe that their content delivery engine, as found in their current toolbar, is lacking in enough robustness to stop others from taking advantage of it, or simply hijacking it. It is my impression, (I remind you that I did state I do not have facts to back it up, just a heck of a lot of coincidence), the Yahoo toolbar is being utilized by less honorable people (perhaps via hijacking it) to deliver thier malicious software. Yahoo may very well just be the goat that allows the disease to be carried. There are just too many people, including myself, who have had these experiences to dismiss them as coincidental.
Lol, oh, I guess I was wrong. If you work in the industry, then there could not possibly be an issue. No personal disrespect meant, really. But that is not much in the way of proof.
I don't have proof, but I have a strong set of circumstances that suggest the Yahoo toolbar for IE is delivering ads and spyware to machines. I too ban it at home and at work. I have had everyone of my family members bring their PC to me for 'repair' after having it installed for a short time. Each of them was ridden with spyware. After removing it and cleaning the machines. They have not had any more trouble. After a dozen or so machines, with the same results, I have to question Yahoos integrety.
Come on now! Dirk Pitt has had one of these (two actually) for years now at NUMA (National Underwater and Marina Agency). If I remember my reading correctly, NUMA's version was autonomous and could operate for several days without refueling or recharging oxygen tanks (if there are people inside too).
The FCC is simply stifely innovation in this area. That's what happens when most of your funding comes from the companies you are regulating. NO government agency should be allowed to make and threaten to enforce rules without cleary annunciating the consequences of breaking them. This tack on the FCC's part is on purpose. Their constituants do not want VoIP to take off. It will harm their business. This is a great way to keep investors out of the area, as they will not risk their dollars, not knowing how much they stand to lose with these nebulous FCC proclomations.
Thankfully, it will be difficult for the FCC to enforce any policing action against the existing major VoIP providers as they are not US companies and do not base any of their operation here in the states. The only way they can stop us from using these services is if they institute a massive China like web filtering complex to stop traffic from the US to places like Vonage. I sincerely hope that the public would take matters into their own hands at that point if our own government tried something like that.
So much for any hope of a good US based VoIP company.
The article, as posted on Slashdot, is not correct. It is illegal under federal law to produce any new equipment using Freon and illegal to manufacture it in the States. See this article or search google for yourself. Granted there is a lot of hoopla about it's replacements not being so good either, but the Freon arguement is dead. You can still buy Freon, but only freon that has been recovered from existing systems.
I hope it stays that way. I have had far less spyware infections since I have used Firefox. It is scary to see the malicious coders out there trying to crack Firefox in the same way they did IE. Personally I think they had ought to jail these people the same as they would if you were caught picking the lock on my home's front door. It is intentional and malicious. It's only purpose is to create havoc. IE or Firefox, the real problem is the people out there writing the malicious code. They are the ones that we had ought to be targetting, instead of pointing fingers at the makers of the browsers. Meanwhile, I will continue to use my Firefox browser and be more diligent with the clicking of message boxes.
IE's vulerabilites are admittedly in the same area. It is not that IE installs bad code, it is that it allows bad code to be installed. I don't see the difference. I am not defending IE at all, but Firefox is starting to quack like a duck too, it seems to me.
Perhaps there is some credibility to the arguement that once usage of a software package becomes widespread enough, there will be people who find ways to use it to their (malicious) advantage, regardless of the built in security features.
I too enjoy my commute home. I have to drive for 40 minutes to get there, but I have found it is a great 'unwinder' for the day. I drive out of the city and into the country. I take the time to remove the thoughts of the hectic work day from my mind and enjoy the sites along the way. I don't let other drivers annoy me. I relax. By the time I am home, i am settled in mind and body. I wouldn't give it up. To close to work has a number of drawbacks that I would prefer to avoid, (such as being too available to come back in when there are problems). Besides, that is my NPR (National Public Radio) time too. Hek my son and I go out purposefully every Saturday for an hour just so we can get our fill of Car Talk each saturday morning. Comutes are what you make of them. Not everyone lets them become an irritant to them. A better balance to life is to find the good in all and enjoy it, rather than look for the bad and dwell on it. Makes for a much happier life.
Isn't this a huge hole in firefox as a whole? What is to stop extensions from being added to my browser that open it up to malicious content? Isn't this the same as the problems that IE has? IE is fine until you start allowing plug-ins, add-ons and scripts. What is to stop a script from running that adds in malicious extensions or plugins to firefox? Turn off the feature? I can do that in IE too? Am I missing something here or isFirefox no more secure that Firefox?
" I am not aware of any production process which has multiple layers of transistors."
Posting anonymous because I know how much Slashdotters hate to be wrong. This isbeing done currently. This guy is in the closet, or does not have access to Intel's latest fabs. Heck even the older fabs do this on a smaller scale. Multiple layers of transistors are currently in all of Intel's latest fabs. This is old science. Just because you are not aware of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I worked in designing these fabs and know intimately how they produce chips. They are many layered with substrates, conductive layers and many trans layers. The article does not mention anything that is not already in currently production and for sale on the shelves of you local PC shop today. There is either more to this guy's research, or his is really wasting research dollars, (my gosh, not in America! NO!)
I loved Richard Dean Anderson in Star Gate. If anything, I think they are going to have to pull off some briliant writing to save the show now. I do like that they stole the Farscape cast for the sho and that is a plus, but without that Anderson humor, well, it won't be the same.
I also don't put an once of credit into anything that blowhard Richard Hatch has to say. What a dork he is.
If Netscape is responsible for the birth of the 'World Wide Web' can I then blame them for the resulting 'Dot Com' crash that cost me so much money and lowerred my income? If they hadn't invented it in the first place, all of this crap never would have happened. (?) I worked happily in the tech arena prior to Netscape and was well paid, very well paid. Now no one wants to risk their dollars on technology unless there is a proven return. Not a bad thing, but it certainly stifels innovation.;)
The point is that we have not yet discovered anything that allows us to get more energy from results than we put into the action of obtaining them. People like to herald new ideas, such as semiconductors and such, while ignoring the cost and energy needed to produce them. The only method, according to existing physics, is to use a material that is already created that we can harness the release of energy during it decay, or entropy. To create a material simply to decay it later for it's energy is never going to be viable unless the resources used to create that are abundantly available to begin with. Even then as long as we are bound to earth and our solar system, those are all exhaustable at some point. The bigger picture dictates that we have to be more realistic in our approach rather than simply changing the source of the material we use for energy. Hydrocarbon 'fossil' based fuels are very limited in reality and we have to change. Hydrogen is at least a source that we can produce ourselves rather than rely on others. That benefit alone is enough reason to change to it, despite the lack of savings in dollars. To support the change though, we are ignoring the need for more infrastructure in the areas of electricity that will cripple those goals in the short term. We seem to be blindly swinging a bat at answers even though the facts are all there in front of us.
Yea, this issue is so much more important than fixing the problem of people dying in this country because they cannot afford healthcare. I am so glad to see that Clinton cares more about what our children see rather than if they or ther parents can survive a curable illness because they cannot afford to see a doctor and or the medication to correct the problem.
Glad to see someone else understands this method is simply dumb. We can't replace one inefficient method with another even more inefficient method. People also seem to think that we can get all of the hydrogen we want from water. There is no method to do this that does not require more energy put into the process that the hydrogen contains when released. Water is already in a 'burnt' state. You have to 'unburn' it to get the hydrogen back out. That makes that approach nonsense too. I do however think we need to pursue Hydrogen fuels, regardless of the inefficiencies to get ourselves off the dependencies of forgien countries to supply our energy needs.
It was 1994/1995. The error produced was an error of 0.006% and would only occur once per 27,000 years of continuous use. I will conceed that it is still an error, but I think the that unless you were doing some pretty heavy math for an inordinate amount of time, you would never have encountered the issue. As a personal system problem, it didn't amount to anything, as a business problem (i.e. calculating values of transistor doping for instance), it was the cause of distrust and reasonably so. For you check book application, it would never ever come into play regardless of how long you used it. It was more than ten years ago and yes it was only in the cases of obscure math. Beyond that, they did not deny it's existence, they did however refuse to replace them until the public cried out loud enough. Intel took the stance that the user had to prove that they needed more accuracy the the 0.006% error in 27,000 years of calculations produced. That pee'd a lot of people off.
You are forcuing me to defend something I don't want to. I don't own a single Intel processor because I like the AMD lineup much much better. I do however hate to see misinformation spread around like this. I would recommend an AMD processor over an Intel anyday, but not because of a non-existent problem. This issue does not exist today.
Agreed, and this may be the real payoff for Apple. Being able to 'try out' the Apple OS and see if you like it without having to make a huge investment in propretary hardware is what will make the difference. This could place Apple in a position to finally challenge MS on a level playing field. I currently run WinXP, but would love to try out the Apple OS on my own hardware. Other than that, I refuse to spend that much money on something that removes me from being compatable with my work environment.
Slashdot Mirror
What and miss a great opportunity for a wonderful conspiracy theory in the future?
"They destroyed those things so we wouldn't know what it REALLY found. I know they did! Why else would they destroy them. It must be a conspiracy!"
Free Fall is the appropriate and technically correct term in this case.
"negated the relative effects of gravity"
I would reconsider your stance if I were you. If you truely negated the effects of gravity, then you would most certainly stop falling. You haven'y stopped gravity at all, you have simply surrounded yourself with fluid moving at the same speed, at the same acceleration. That can hardly be seen as negating gravity as the object is still hurtling toward earth at increasing speeds. Gravity is still effecting the object. All you are really witnessing is the negation of an opposing force to the force exerted by gravity. That I will agree to.
Perhaps I would make my case better if I argued that is is not Zero G as the Slashdot article title states. I would consider a typical space shuttle orbit as Low G, but that is an opinion, not a fact and it's a matter of perspective. The fact is, as others here have stated, there is no such thing as Zero G (that we know about). Gravity is an influence at any distance, in every corner of the universe. Simply wrapping an object in a blanket of air that moves at the same speed as the object is not zero G. Physics, on ALL levels, denies any truth in that.
This is not a low gravity experiment. Technically the best you could call it is a virtual low gravity. The water is actually within the same gravity well as the plane is and is falling to the earth at the same speed. The difference is that it is enclosed in an atmosphere that is also falling at the same speed, or being forced to fall at the same speed. This does not necessarily remove all of the effects of gravity upon the fluid. The results might be similar in a real low gravity environment, but not the same. All this experiment shows is what happens if you fall to the earth at the same speed as the water and air is not whipping around the the water blob to cause deformation. It is important to remember the difference here.
If you are falling into a Black hole and all of the material around you is falling in at the same speed, does that mean you have negated the effects of the Black hole?
"Yahoo has very little to gain from promoting spyware."
I apologize if I suggested or insinuated that Yahoo was promoting spyware or malware. I too, do not believe that is the case. I do however believe that their content delivery engine, as found in their current toolbar, is lacking in enough robustness to stop others from taking advantage of it, or simply hijacking it. It is my impression, (I remind you that I did state I do not have facts to back it up, just a heck of a lot of coincidence), the Yahoo toolbar is being utilized by less honorable people (perhaps via hijacking it) to deliver thier malicious software. Yahoo may very well just be the goat that allows the disease to be carried. There are just too many people, including myself, who have had these experiences to dismiss them as coincidental.
" Very unlikely. I work in the industry."
Lol, oh, I guess I was wrong. If you work in the industry, then there could not possibly be an issue. No personal disrespect meant, really. But that is not much in the way of proof.
That is what every one of them say. It isn't me!
I don't have proof, but I have a strong set of circumstances that suggest the Yahoo toolbar for IE is delivering ads and spyware to machines. I too ban it at home and at work. I have had everyone of my family members bring their PC to me for 'repair' after having it installed for a short time. Each of them was ridden with spyware. After removing it and cleaning the machines. They have not had any more trouble. After a dozen or so machines, with the same results, I have to question Yahoos integrety.
Come on now! Dirk Pitt has had one of these (two actually) for years now at NUMA (National Underwater and Marina Agency). If I remember my reading correctly, NUMA's version was autonomous and could operate for several days without refueling or recharging oxygen tanks (if there are people inside too).
The FCC is simply stifely innovation in this area. That's what happens when most of your funding comes from the companies you are regulating. NO government agency should be allowed to make and threaten to enforce rules without cleary annunciating the consequences of breaking them. This tack on the FCC's part is on purpose. Their constituants do not want VoIP to take off. It will harm their business. This is a great way to keep investors out of the area, as they will not risk their dollars, not knowing how much they stand to lose with these nebulous FCC proclomations.
Thankfully, it will be difficult for the FCC to enforce any policing action against the existing major VoIP providers as they are not US companies and do not base any of their operation here in the states. The only way they can stop us from using these services is if they institute a massive China like web filtering complex to stop traffic from the US to places like Vonage. I sincerely hope that the public would take matters into their own hands at that point if our own government tried something like that.
So much for any hope of a good US based VoIP company.
The article, as posted on Slashdot, is not correct. It is illegal under federal law to produce any new equipment using Freon and illegal to manufacture it in the States. See this article or search google for yourself. Granted there is a lot of hoopla about it's replacements not being so good either, but the Freon arguement is dead. You can still buy Freon, but only freon that has been recovered from existing systems.
I hope it stays that way. I have had far less spyware infections since I have used Firefox. It is scary to see the malicious coders out there trying to crack Firefox in the same way they did IE. Personally I think they had ought to jail these people the same as they would if you were caught picking the lock on my home's front door. It is intentional and malicious. It's only purpose is to create havoc. IE or Firefox, the real problem is the people out there writing the malicious code. They are the ones that we had ought to be targetting, instead of pointing fingers at the makers of the browsers. Meanwhile, I will continue to use my Firefox browser and be more diligent with the clicking of message boxes.
IE's vulerabilites are admittedly in the same area. It is not that IE installs bad code, it is that it allows bad code to be installed. I don't see the difference. I am not defending IE at all, but Firefox is starting to quack like a duck too, it seems to me.
Perhaps there is some credibility to the arguement that once usage of a software package becomes widespread enough, there will be people who find ways to use it to their (malicious) advantage, regardless of the built in security features.
I too enjoy my commute home. I have to drive for 40 minutes to get there, but I have found it is a great 'unwinder' for the day. I drive out of the city and into the country. I take the time to remove the thoughts of the hectic work day from my mind and enjoy the sites along the way. I don't let other drivers annoy me. I relax. By the time I am home, i am settled in mind and body. I wouldn't give it up. To close to work has a number of drawbacks that I would prefer to avoid, (such as being too available to come back in when there are problems). Besides, that is my NPR (National Public Radio) time too. Hek my son and I go out purposefully every Saturday for an hour just so we can get our fill of Car Talk each saturday morning. Comutes are what you make of them. Not everyone lets them become an irritant to them. A better balance to life is to find the good in all and enjoy it, rather than look for the bad and dwell on it. Makes for a much happier life.
Isn't this a huge hole in firefox as a whole? What is to stop extensions from being added to my browser that open it up to malicious content? Isn't this the same as the problems that IE has? IE is fine until you start allowing plug-ins, add-ons and scripts. What is to stop a script from running that adds in malicious extensions or plugins to firefox? Turn off the feature? I can do that in IE too? Am I missing something here or isFirefox no more secure that Firefox?
so much for anon post. Wish slashdot could get their code working.
" I am not aware of any production process which has multiple layers of transistors."
Posting anonymous because I know how much Slashdotters hate to be wrong. This isbeing done currently. This guy is in the closet, or does not have access to Intel's latest fabs. Heck even the older fabs do this on a smaller scale. Multiple layers of transistors are currently in all of Intel's latest fabs. This is old science. Just because you are not aware of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I worked in designing these fabs and know intimately how they produce chips. They are many layered with substrates, conductive layers and many trans layers. The article does not mention anything that is not already in currently production and for sale on the shelves of you local PC shop today. There is either more to this guy's research, or his is really wasting research dollars, (my gosh, not in America! NO!)
I loved Richard Dean Anderson in Star Gate. If anything, I think they are going to have to pull off some briliant writing to save the show now. I do like that they stole the Farscape cast for the sho and that is a plus, but without that Anderson humor, well, it won't be the same.
I also don't put an once of credit into anything that blowhard Richard Hatch has to say. What a dork he is.
If Netscape is responsible for the birth of the 'World Wide Web' can I then blame them for the resulting 'Dot Com' crash that cost me so much money and lowerred my income? If they hadn't invented it in the first place, all of this crap never would have happened. (?) I worked happily in the tech arena prior to Netscape and was well paid, very well paid. Now no one wants to risk their dollars on technology unless there is a proven return. Not a bad thing, but it certainly stifels innovation. ;)
The point is that we have not yet discovered anything that allows us to get more energy from results than we put into the action of obtaining them. People like to herald new ideas, such as semiconductors and such, while ignoring the cost and energy needed to produce them. The only method, according to existing physics, is to use a material that is already created that we can harness the release of energy during it decay, or entropy. To create a material simply to decay it later for it's energy is never going to be viable unless the resources used to create that are abundantly available to begin with. Even then as long as we are bound to earth and our solar system, those are all exhaustable at some point. The bigger picture dictates that we have to be more realistic in our approach rather than simply changing the source of the material we use for energy. Hydrocarbon 'fossil' based fuels are very limited in reality and we have to change. Hydrogen is at least a source that we can produce ourselves rather than rely on others. That benefit alone is enough reason to change to it, despite the lack of savings in dollars. To support the change though, we are ignoring the need for more infrastructure in the areas of electricity that will cripple those goals in the short term. We seem to be blindly swinging a bat at answers even though the facts are all there in front of us.
Yea, this issue is so much more important than fixing the problem of people dying in this country because they cannot afford healthcare. I am so glad to see that Clinton cares more about what our children see rather than if they or ther parents can survive a curable illness because they cannot afford to see a doctor and or the medication to correct the problem.
Glad to see someone else understands this method is simply dumb. We can't replace one inefficient method with another even more inefficient method. People also seem to think that we can get all of the hydrogen we want from water. There is no method to do this that does not require more energy put into the process that the hydrogen contains when released. Water is already in a 'burnt' state. You have to 'unburn' it to get the hydrogen back out. That makes that approach nonsense too. I do however think we need to pursue Hydrogen fuels, regardless of the inefficiencies to get ourselves off the dependencies of forgien countries to supply our energy needs.
It was 1994/1995. The error produced was an error of 0.006% and would only occur once per 27,000 years of continuous use. I will conceed that it is still an error, but I think the that unless you were doing some pretty heavy math for an inordinate amount of time, you would never have encountered the issue. As a personal system problem, it didn't amount to anything, as a business problem (i.e. calculating values of transistor doping for instance), it was the cause of distrust and reasonably so. For you check book application, it would never ever come into play regardless of how long you used it. It was more than ten years ago and yes it was only in the cases of obscure math. Beyond that, they did not deny it's existence, they did however refuse to replace them until the public cried out loud enough. Intel took the stance that the user had to prove that they needed more accuracy the the 0.006% error in 27,000 years of calculations produced. That pee'd a lot of people off.
You are forcuing me to defend something I don't want to. I don't own a single Intel processor because I like the AMD lineup much much better. I do however hate to see misinformation spread around like this. I would recommend an AMD processor over an Intel anyday, but not because of a non-existent problem. This issue does not exist today.
hmm. And I was going to tell you that I get nearly 6 continuous hours out of my new Dell laptop. Perhaps it's the machines you are using?
Agreed, and this may be the real payoff for Apple. Being able to 'try out' the Apple OS and see if you like it without having to make a huge investment in propretary hardware is what will make the difference. This could place Apple in a position to finally challenge MS on a level playing field. I currently run WinXP, but would love to try out the Apple OS on my own hardware. Other than that, I refuse to spend that much money on something that removes me from being compatable with my work environment.