The problem with the plan is the effect it will have on Russia and China. It's not like we're the only ones with this problem. If we replace our old weapons with shiny new ones that last longer, then Russia and China might think they have to do the same. Or maybe it's cheaper for them to just make some more weapons to make up for the unreliable ones. Which makes the US make more weapons because they're making more. Rinse, repeat.
The point is that making changes in arsenals only makes the other guy do the same thing. Will that ultimately be a good thing for us? It seems to me that we're missing an opportunity to further reduce nuclear stockpiles. The things are going to rot anyway, if we can get Russia to do the same, why rebuild all the replacements?
The point is, neither the readers, nor the authors can relate to an atomic bomb
I don't know about you, but I've heard that an atomic bomb was detonated in a populated area a couple times, and I understand it killed quite a few people and destroyed the cities. I'd say that's being able to relate to the power of an atomic bomb. You don't need "personal knowledge" to understand how destructive something can be, an imagination does wonders.
Only if the Hiroshima bomb was a dud. Seriously, a bomb unleashing 63 terajoules of energy (from wikipedia). Even if that rock was 300kg, that means that it would have to be travelling at 648,000m/s or about 1,500,000 mph, in order to have the same amount of energy. Heck, that's about.0022c!
To say this guy overstated the impact is an understatement in itself.
Where did you get the figure 300kg? You just made it up? Maybe someone can estimate the energy of the impact from seismometer readings, but your estimate is based on no evidence at all and is essentially worthless.
That's true, but the vulnerability (according to Microsoft) requires the end user to go to an infected website. Simply being networked for data exchange isn't enough.
It sounds like it'd be a usefull tool for electricians or audio engineers, but it'd be far more practical if it were an external device that you could take off. I don't know many people that want to permanently place something in their body that could easily lead to damage to your finger. How would a thin stick-on magnet that you could attach to a finger work?
But I cannot imagine that there is NOBODY who will pay for vulnerability fixes to their old line instead of upgrading.
If you were talking about Windows NT4, I might agree with you. NT4 had significant server deployment, and I'd imagine there's still a few corps that might have some machines running it. But Windows 98/ME was a user OS, so I find it very unlikely that anyone that has the cash to poney up for supporting it didn't move their installed base over to Windows 2000 or above long ago. I think the only significant Windows 98 installations you'll see are embedded machines running a POS system (for instance). Since those kind of embedded systems are never used for web browsing this vulnerability has pretty minimal impact on those systems.
I'm not a material scientist, but I've heard that Titanium is difficult to work with because it's so hard and the because of the high melting point. This makes forming and welding it rather difficult (compared to steel).
Just a reminder people, 911 is there for you to call when crimes are being committed, no matter how petty you may think they are.
I do think you should have called 911, as your situation could (and did) easily escalate into an emergency situation. But generalizing to calling 911 for any crime being committed, no matter how petty is going to far. Jaywalking and speeding are crimes too, but I'd certainly hope no one is clogging up 911 for something like that. The same goes for a loud party, or if your neighbor has to many dandelions in his yard. 911 is NOT for reporting any crime, it's for emergencies, potential emergencies, or when someones life may be in danger (drunk drivers, etc).
Designing proper databases and the SQL to use them optimally falls under the domain of science/engineering.
The process of doing science isn't as clear cut as you're trying to make it out to be. You're thinking of science as the nice, clean end product that's been checked and written in textbooks. Getting those results can most certainly be an "art" (that is something learned by experience, and not easily definable). Working with something as complex as a database is similar in that the performance you get from different databases isn't always so easy to define. Databases are among the most complex pieces of software out there, so it should be no surprise that some people see working with them more art than science. There's really no call for calling anyone who sees the world differently than you do "a hack".
Yet why should she be killed when there were people who were willing to take care of her?
Why should her husband be made to suffer while his wife's body is forced to continue to live when everything that was Teri Sciavo died long ago? You seem to think that existence is just about a breathing and a heartbeat. This isn't about incoveince, it's about a woman who died a long time ago kept alive by her family who couldn't accept that the only thing that survived was the womans body.
If it's not O.K. to do something to the people of one's country, it's inappropriate to do it to foreigners.
Considering everyone that was imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay is still there, with no hope or plans for actual trials, I'd say "they" haven't learned anything and show no signs of ever doing so.
Umm.. err. Do you really think the government is just another corporation? This is the fatal flaw that you seem to completely miss. I seem to recall the phrase "of the people, by the people" somewhere when referring to democracy. This ruling could, and probbably will silence very important people who work for the government like say scientists who work for the FDA, anyone who studies global warming, etc. It's kind of scary that you think the government should just shut people up that work for them when they report things the government doesn't like.
Lets look at some of the features on today's phones.
Text messaging: I've only met one person over the age of 35 who used this. It seems to have the sole purpose of sending messages silently without tipping off teachers/administrators in a school setting.
I'm not quite yet over 35, but the text messaging is quite usefull to me when I don't want the bother of a full phone call. It's also usefull when the person you're calling might not be able to take a phone call, but can read a simple text message. I don't use it much, but I wouldn't buy a phone without SMS. Not using SMS for anyone over 35 or so has more to do with the culture of the baby busters and baby boomers. There's a bit more resistance to technology since they didn't grow up with computers as much as the under 35 crowd.
Camera phone: If this is the best you can do for taking pictures, dear god are you hopeless.
I don't have a camera on my phone, but I tend to agree. The whole thing sounds pretty useless to me, and I've never thought to myself "if I could just take a picture right now!!"
Email/Internet: Ok, just another fancy way to hit kids up for silent messaging and stuff they really don't need.
Email on my phone isn't terribly usefull to me, but I often use google though SMS to get phone numbers/addresses of local businesses. If I had real internet on my phone it'd be nice to more directly find out information on it like movie times, wikipedia entries, rather than hoping google figures out what a I want (which is surprisingly most of the time).
I think you've missed the point. In the question it's "which came first, egg producer a or the egg". If egg producer b produces something you'll call an egg, which then hatches into egg producer a, then the egg came first because it wasn't produced by egg producer a, but by egg producer b.
The distinctions are kind of dumb, and really the whole question is dumb. The point is that these language distinctions aren't real, or at least are as real as they're usefull. If you had an actual question to answer that was well defined, then your definitions of egg producer, and egg become relevent. In the abscence of context, however, the whole thing is meaningless.
The next tax that will be proposed is one on spoken words. Everyone will be required to carry a word counting device to be collected each month and your tax assesed. If you don't pay your vocal cords will be disconnected until you do. Think of the benefits! Your Uncle Ned, who talks your ear off at family gatherings about all the boring details of his life might just shut up when he can't buy food anymore. People will learn to convey ideas in the fewest amount of words possible, so you won't have to sit through long winded conversations just to find out what the weather is like.
Later on the sign language loophole will be closed to get those scofflaw mute people trying to evade the tax. After that we'll have a thought tax. The more you think, the more you owe. That one will be great at keeping the serfs in line.
Who said that science is limited to the physical world?
Well, I think there should be a distinction between the study of the real world (the physical), and what we create in our minds. I guess I think mathematics is more related to language than it is to science. In that sense I consider mathematics to be a branch of philosophy that produces provable answers. Speaking philosophically, I find defining math seperate from science to have more utility. It conveys the idea of what mathematics is better than saying it's science.
Except for the fact that chickens are birds, and birds evolved from dinosaurs, and dinosaurs layed eggs.
Of course this is a literal interpretation of the phrase, and doesn't take into account the larger problem that it points to, that is "chicken and egg problems". The general question is more like "which came first, the egg, or the egg producer"? Ultimately I think the answer to this lies in the distinction we make between egg and not egg. When do you start calling something an egg? Does it have to have a hard outer shell like a chicken egg? Is a single cell that exchanges genetic information with another cell, then divides into a multi-celluar thing an egg?
In reality the hard distinctions we make between things is a helpfull abstraction, but it's not exactly "real". Definitions are used to convey meaning, but the only thing that's real is the physical world, not our words for it.
Is it really that easy to come up with unproveable situations in high level mathematics?
The thing is that it can and has been proven. That's the point I'm trying to make. Mathematics has things inside it (possibly even an infinite amount of things) that don't exist in the real world. Hell, even euclidean geometry doesn't actually exist in the real world and is only an approximation (just a very good approximation). Space, as you may know from Cosmology, is warped as described in General Relativity. It isn't flat like euclidian geometry requires.
Sure, mathematics is certainly a language that's used extensively to describe what's going on in quantum mechanics, but that doesn't make it real. The actual thing you're observing is real, but the description of it is just an idea.
For the "real" part of mathematics, look no further than applied mathematics, and indeed much of mathematical physics. Vast amounts of physical theories are grounded in mathematics, and mathematicians solve many real world problems through the application of mathematical models. Where would general relitivity be without mathematics.
Absolutely. But I'd say mathematics is as real as any other tool. Is a hammer real? Well certainly the actual physical hammer is that pounds in nails. But the idea of a hammer is just an abstraction created by our minds.
This is a bit closer to philosophy than I'm normally comfortable with, but I'd still say that for the purposes of the orignal discussion, mathematics can't be ahead of the other sciences.
Don't try to hide behind false innuendo and the inability to spell the word college. I'm turning you into the FBI. I'm sure they'll be quite happy to find the serial killer that's been murdering poor innocent people named Joe. The world will be rid of Joe murdering bastards like yourself when they lock you up. Just think of all the people in prison named Joe that will be ready to gang rape you. You an only hope your new boyfriend will protect you from other people named Joe sticking you with a shiv.
I don't buy into this "play on words". That's all subtltey they teach you in places like college. I believe the world is simple. Black and white, right and wrong, meat and potatoes, Martin and Lewis. You sir are advocating the murder of people named Joe, and I simply won't stand for it. I don't know what prompted your hatred for poor defenseless people named Joe, but I suggest you seek professional help before it's too late.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with the plan is the effect it will have on Russia and China. It's not like we're the only ones with this problem. If we replace our old weapons with shiny new ones that last longer, then Russia and China might think they have to do the same. Or maybe it's cheaper for them to just make some more weapons to make up for the unreliable ones. Which makes the US make more weapons because they're making more. Rinse, repeat.
The point is that making changes in arsenals only makes the other guy do the same thing. Will that ultimately be a good thing for us? It seems to me that we're missing an opportunity to further reduce nuclear stockpiles. The things are going to rot anyway, if we can get Russia to do the same, why rebuild all the replacements?
The point is, neither the readers, nor the authors can relate to an atomic bomb
I don't know about you, but I've heard that an atomic bomb was detonated in a populated area a couple times, and I understand it killed quite a few people and destroyed the cities. I'd say that's being able to relate to the power of an atomic bomb. You don't need "personal knowledge" to understand how destructive something can be, an imagination does wonders.
Only if the Hiroshima bomb was a dud. Seriously, a bomb unleashing 63 terajoules of energy (from wikipedia). Even if that rock was 300kg, that means that it would have to be travelling at 648,000m/s or about 1,500,000 mph, in order to have the same amount of energy. Heck, that's about
To say this guy overstated the impact is an understatement in itself.
Where did you get the figure 300kg? You just made it up? Maybe someone can estimate the energy of the impact from seismometer readings, but your estimate is based on no evidence at all and is essentially worthless.
That's true, but the vulnerability (according to Microsoft) requires the end user to go to an infected website. Simply being networked for data exchange isn't enough.
It sounds like it'd be a usefull tool for electricians or audio engineers, but it'd be far more practical if it were an external device that you could take off. I don't know many people that want to permanently place something in their body that could easily lead to damage to your finger. How would a thin stick-on magnet that you could attach to a finger work?
But I cannot imagine that there is NOBODY who will pay for vulnerability fixes to their old line instead of upgrading.
If you were talking about Windows NT4, I might agree with you. NT4 had significant server deployment, and I'd imagine there's still a few corps that might have some machines running it. But Windows 98/ME was a user OS, so I find it very unlikely that anyone that has the cash to poney up for supporting it didn't move their installed base over to Windows 2000 or above long ago. I think the only significant Windows 98 installations you'll see are embedded machines running a POS system (for instance). Since those kind of embedded systems are never used for web browsing this vulnerability has pretty minimal impact on those systems.
I'm not a material scientist, but I've heard that Titanium is difficult to work with because it's so hard and the because of the high melting point. This makes forming and welding it rather difficult (compared to steel).
Just a reminder people, 911 is there for you to call when crimes are being committed, no matter how petty you may think they are.
I do think you should have called 911, as your situation could (and did) easily escalate into an emergency situation. But generalizing to calling 911 for any crime being committed, no matter how petty is going to far. Jaywalking and speeding are crimes too, but I'd certainly hope no one is clogging up 911 for something like that. The same goes for a loud party, or if your neighbor has to many dandelions in his yard. 911 is NOT for reporting any crime, it's for emergencies, potential emergencies, or when someones life may be in danger (drunk drivers, etc).
Designing proper databases and the SQL to use them optimally falls under the domain of science/engineering.
The process of doing science isn't as clear cut as you're trying to make it out to be. You're thinking of science as the nice, clean end product that's been checked and written in textbooks. Getting those results can most certainly be an "art" (that is something learned by experience, and not easily definable). Working with something as complex as a database is similar in that the performance you get from different databases isn't always so easy to define. Databases are among the most complex pieces of software out there, so it should be no surprise that some people see working with them more art than science. There's really no call for calling anyone who sees the world differently than you do "a hack".
Yet why should she be killed when there were people who were willing to take care of her?
Why should her husband be made to suffer while his wife's body is forced to continue to live when everything that was Teri Sciavo died long ago? You seem to think that existence is just about a breathing and a heartbeat. This isn't about incoveince, it's about a woman who died a long time ago kept alive by her family who couldn't accept that the only thing that survived was the womans body.
If it's not O.K. to do something to the people of one's country, it's inappropriate to do it to foreigners.
Considering everyone that was imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay is still there, with no hope or plans for actual trials, I'd say "they" haven't learned anything and show no signs of ever doing so.
and dissassembling old hard drives and smashing the platters.
If the hard drive is still operational, just run dban on it and it will be completely unreadable.
Strange that when it's just so incredibly clear cut there was STILL a 5-4 ruling in a not very liberal court. Funny, huh?
Umm.. err. Do you really think the government is just another corporation? This is the fatal flaw that you seem to completely miss. I seem to recall the phrase "of the people, by the people" somewhere when referring to democracy. This ruling could, and probbably will silence very important people who work for the government like say scientists who work for the FDA, anyone who studies global warming, etc. It's kind of scary that you think the government should just shut people up that work for them when they report things the government doesn't like.
Lets look at some of the features on today's phones.
Text messaging: I've only met one person over the age of 35 who used this. It seems to have the sole purpose of sending messages silently without tipping off teachers/administrators in a school setting.
I'm not quite yet over 35, but the text messaging is quite usefull to me when I don't want the bother of a full phone call. It's also usefull when the person you're calling might not be able to take a phone call, but can read a simple text message. I don't use it much, but I wouldn't buy a phone without SMS. Not using SMS for anyone over 35 or so has more to do with the culture of the baby busters and baby boomers. There's a bit more resistance to technology since they didn't grow up with computers as much as the under 35 crowd.
Camera phone: If this is the best you can do for taking pictures, dear god are you hopeless.
I don't have a camera on my phone, but I tend to agree. The whole thing sounds pretty useless to me, and I've never thought to myself "if I could just take a picture right now!!"
Email/Internet: Ok, just another fancy way to hit kids up for silent messaging and stuff they really don't need.
Email on my phone isn't terribly usefull to me, but I often use google though SMS to get phone numbers/addresses of local businesses. If I had real internet on my phone it'd be nice to more directly find out information on it like movie times, wikipedia entries, rather than hoping google figures out what a I want (which is surprisingly most of the time).
Nah, you've got it backwards...
The answer lies in the distinction between "Chicken" and "Not Chicken"
Touché...
I think you've missed the point. In the question it's "which came first, egg producer a or the egg". If egg producer b produces something you'll call an egg, which then hatches into egg producer a, then the egg came first because it wasn't produced by egg producer a, but by egg producer b.
The distinctions are kind of dumb, and really the whole question is dumb. The point is that these language distinctions aren't real, or at least are as real as they're usefull. If you had an actual question to answer that was well defined, then your definitions of egg producer, and egg become relevent. In the abscence of context, however, the whole thing is meaningless.
The next tax that will be proposed is one on spoken words. Everyone will be required to carry a word counting device to be collected each month and your tax assesed. If you don't pay your vocal cords will be disconnected until you do. Think of the benefits! Your Uncle Ned, who talks your ear off at family gatherings about all the boring details of his life might just shut up when he can't buy food anymore. People will learn to convey ideas in the fewest amount of words possible, so you won't have to sit through long winded conversations just to find out what the weather is like.
Later on the sign language loophole will be closed to get those scofflaw mute people trying to evade the tax. After that we'll have a thought tax. The more you think, the more you owe. That one will be great at keeping the serfs in line.
Who said that science is limited to the physical world?
Well, I think there should be a distinction between the study of the real world (the physical), and what we create in our minds. I guess I think mathematics is more related to language than it is to science. In that sense I consider mathematics to be a branch of philosophy that produces provable answers. Speaking philosophically, I find defining math seperate from science to have more utility. It conveys the idea of what mathematics is better than saying it's science.
Except for the fact that chickens are birds, and birds evolved from dinosaurs, and dinosaurs layed eggs.
Of course this is a literal interpretation of the phrase, and doesn't take into account the larger problem that it points to, that is "chicken and egg problems". The general question is more like "which came first, the egg, or the egg producer"? Ultimately I think the answer to this lies in the distinction we make between egg and not egg. When do you start calling something an egg? Does it have to have a hard outer shell like a chicken egg? Is a single cell that exchanges genetic information with another cell, then divides into a multi-celluar thing an egg?
In reality the hard distinctions we make between things is a helpfull abstraction, but it's not exactly "real". Definitions are used to convey meaning, but the only thing that's real is the physical world, not our words for it.
Is it really that easy to come up with unproveable situations in high level mathematics?
The thing is that it can and has been proven. That's the point I'm trying to make. Mathematics has things inside it (possibly even an infinite amount of things) that don't exist in the real world. Hell, even euclidean geometry doesn't actually exist in the real world and is only an approximation (just a very good approximation). Space, as you may know from Cosmology, is warped as described in General Relativity. It isn't flat like euclidian geometry requires.
Sure, mathematics is certainly a language that's used extensively to describe what's going on in quantum mechanics, but that doesn't make it real. The actual thing you're observing is real, but the description of it is just an idea.
For the "real" part of mathematics, look no further than applied mathematics, and indeed much of mathematical physics. Vast amounts of physical theories are grounded in mathematics, and mathematicians solve many real world problems through the application of mathematical models. Where would general relitivity be without mathematics.
Absolutely. But I'd say mathematics is as real as any other tool. Is a hammer real? Well certainly the actual physical hammer is that pounds in nails. But the idea of a hammer is just an abstraction created by our minds.
This is a bit closer to philosophy than I'm normally comfortable with, but I'd still say that for the purposes of the orignal discussion, mathematics can't be ahead of the other sciences.
Don't try to hide behind false innuendo and the inability to spell the word college. I'm turning you into the FBI. I'm sure they'll be quite happy to find the serial killer that's been murdering poor innocent people named Joe. The world will be rid of Joe murdering bastards like yourself when they lock you up. Just think of all the people in prison named Joe that will be ready to gang rape you. You an only hope your new boyfriend will protect you from other people named Joe sticking you with a shiv.
I don't buy into this "play on words". That's all subtltey they teach you in places like college. I believe the world is simple. Black and white, right and wrong, meat and potatoes, Martin and Lewis. You sir are advocating the murder of people named Joe, and I simply won't stand for it. I don't know what prompted your hatred for poor defenseless people named Joe, but I suggest you seek professional help before it's too late.