getting mummified (a very technical process performed by Man?)
Mummyfied is simply a term for extraordinary well preserved. This can happen because a human pulls out the brains and applies the right ointments, or because the specimen dies under extraordinary conditions - like the dry-freezed dude they found in the alps a couple of years ago.
There were some tracks discovered in the Paluxy River bed that had man tracks and dinosaur tracks side by side,...
Could you perhaps elaborate a bit? What is your source? I would love to read more about it.
I don't think carbon dating can be used for finds that are so old.
Rather, dating can involve studying the geological layer in which the dino is found. These layers can be dated with other methods. I think some of these methods involve radioactive dating, but not of C14.
If it was a scientist that said $77 million, then it the accuracy is of $1 million years. If accuracy had been higher,then it would have said '77.0'. If accuracy had been lower, it would have said '75-80'.
Based on the most conservative estimates for variables in the Drake Equation [seti.org], odds are we're not alone.
This is not quite true. In particular, nobody has been able to build life from scratch in a lab and nobody knows the exact reaction that needs to happen.
This means, that the probability of life arising on a suitable planet (f_l) is completely unknown. For all we know, it could be so low, that it is bound to happen at the most once in the entire universe.
Personally, I don't think that this is the case, and I am eagerly awaiting the results of future trips to Mars and Europa. If they find primitive life there, then that changes a lot.
They're westernized capitalists; they don't care about quality.
Uhm, westernized capitalists make what the customers are willing to pay for.
Lenin's mummy is wearing a high-quality western suit. There was simply no one in the Soviet Union who knew how to make such a thing. The western captialists, however, were accustomed to demanding customers and knew that they had to make goods of the highest quality to get their business.
3 days after the US release until Epsiode 1 VCDs where widespread in South East Asia. The producers must have taken the very first flight out after the first showing, and then started large-scale dupliation immediately.
Some friends of mine - Star Wars fans - were backpacking at that very time. They wanted to wait until they could see the movie in a proper theater but found this almost impossible as every other bar/ restaurant/ hotel was showing the movie...
Many responses to my original post point out that it is not hard to get a hold of pirated anti-virus software.
But the point I tried to make was that for anti-virus software to be effective, you need frequent (daily, for corporate systems) updates from the vendor. While I don't know this for a fact, I would assume that you need a registration or an original serial number to get the latest update.
Generally speaking, the more interaction between a vendor and a user, the more dificult it is to pirate. Where there is no interaction, like music, it is completely impossible for a company to stop pirated copies.
I think picking random sites would actually provide more information
Randomness is the opposite of information. If the sites are truly selected at random, then nothing can be infered from it (other than possibly that the killer is using a randomizing algorithm).
Of course, if the algorithm is 'a random place within 10 miles of my house', then it does not work, because then the locations are not very random.
In order for it to be lethal, it needs to be shot at about 1000 mps (Mach 3 ish).
The issue is not really lethality in the sense of inflicting wounds upon a hit. Even a much slower buller will punch through the skin and cause plenty of harm. Rather the speed is necessary to make the bullet go straight, accurate and far. (Maybe that is what you mean with lethal?)
Even if the serial killers are rational enough to change their patterns, it is still (at least) a small win for the police. The killers will have to go outside their comfort zones, into areas with which they are less familiar and/or require more travel.
Clearly the principles of the software are very sound - and the product has been used successfully in the past.
However, now media is writing extensively about the software and the algorithms involved. A shrewd killer could use such information. He could think again about where to act, perhaps selecting sites at random, or selectively so that they would mislead the program.
What sucks for the civilizaiton on that planet is that they may never learn to navigate spacecraft since the 3 body problem created by having 2 suns is inherently chaotic.
Pretty much everything in this comment is wrong. There are chaotic and non-chaotic solutions to the three-body problem. Sun, earth, moon is an example of the latter.
I suspect that if a planet was in an a chaotic orbit between two stars, then civilizations are not so likely, because climate variations could be extreme (e.g., Mars orbit one year, Venus orbit the next). But if a civilization did exist, then I can't see why they could not learn spacecraft navigation. Thr first challenge is to build rockets powerful enought to leave the planet - this is independent of the planet's orbit. Once they have gotten that far, I am sure the chaotic orbit wont stop them from sending the spacecraft to other planets.
I know that we're looking for existing life or possible places to live, but isn't it very possible there is some sort of life that lives in a drastically different environment than we do? There could very well be some crazy lifeform that lives on gas giants.
Yes there could, but that would be pure speculation. Since we know of only one planet with life, it makes perfect sence to start our search for alien life on similar planets. And it is not like we are throwing away all information on gas giants, on the contrary those are the ones that are most often discovered because of their size.
I don't see how moon colonies (exploitation of nearby systems) should be exclusive of extra-solar planet research (distant exploration). If it is a cost issue, it is worth mentioning that the former is many orders of magnitude more expensive than the latter.
The main conditions for humans to thrive aught to be size (and thus gravity), temperature, and atmosphere.
Sure, being on a moon around a bigger planet would make for funny (i.e., not like on Earth) day cycles, tides, eclipses, seasons and so on. But those are secondary considerations.
Where would you prefer to live, on Mars on on Endor (given that Endor has say no seasonal variations, a 100 hour day cycle, and a spectacular eclipse twice a year).
Like a lot of other submitters I really doubt your claims.
Why not do this. Find a cryptography scientist, and give him this challenge:
Ask him to look at your algorithm. He should swear that if it is an unbreakable, reusable OTP, he will not to tell anyone until it is patented. If not, he can do whatever.
Any expert is bound to take that challenge. If it works, you will be indifferent. If not, you save yourself the money and time of patent applications.
I agree, but there is actually one valid point made.
OTPs are not quite as impractical as they used to be. The pain of distributing the key is mitigated by the fact that it is really easy to store long OTPs. The suggested keychain would last for almost a lifetime of email, even if you don't have any magic reusability.
For commercial satellite launches, 5% of the BLOW UP OR DON't MAKE IT.
Which would indicate, that if they could be made perfectly safe, there would be a 5% decrease in average cost (no longer need for the now customary insurance worth 5% of the launch cost).
The idea of an elevator is to reduce costs by say 90 or 95%.
I see it coming: "Our next speaker, Prof. Inodoro Pereyra, 1/8th of the Nobel Prize 2004"
Well, currently the prize can't be split by more than three people.
However, there are some discussion about changing that. The reason is that more and more often new discoveries come through joint efforts among many groups. The lone theoretician whith a blackboard is not so common any more.
Ups, I misread your comment a bit. Please ignore my previous post.
Let me start over. If I understand the idea correctly, the main advantage of your system is that you claim that it is safer than today's rockets.
But really, safety is not the main problem of today's rockets. The main problem is that it is so darn expensive to get something into orbit, even when everything works. The space elevator suggests a (still unrealistic, I agree) way to dramatically reduce these costs.
If the laser ignited propellants could lift at the same cost then clearly your solution is much better, but is that indeed the case? It is not like such a propulsion system has anything to do with the elevator propulsion system. It seems to me that you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Sure, this is simpler and safer, but does it address the problem that the elevator is designed to solve?
A far simpler and cheaper solution is a massive ground based laser array. (which incidentally is how they are proposing to power this thing...why not skip the cable and build a much bigger laser). The beam would vaporize propellant attached to the bottom of the spacecraft, eliminating perhaps 90% of the danger of rocket travel (the rocket blowing up has always been the biggest risk...if it uses a nonvolatile, inert propellant) and reducing the cost to a tiny fraction of current expenses.
Hum. There is obviously a huge difference between the two propulsion systems. The space elevator version would use electric motors, powered by solar cells, which in turn got their power from a laser.
What you are saying is that shooting the laser on a more traditional rocket would make it 90% more efficient. Could you elaborate on that...? I don't think I buy the quality argument either. The risk of normal rockets is not that they loose some fraction of their output and then fall down. Rather, they tend to fail rather violently when something goes wrong. I don't think an array of extremely powerful lasers will change that.
Slashdot Mirror
getting mummified (a very technical process performed by Man?)
...
Mummyfied is simply a term for extraordinary well preserved. This can happen because a human pulls out the brains and applies the right ointments, or because the specimen dies under extraordinary conditions - like the dry-freezed dude they found in the alps a couple of years ago.
There were some tracks discovered in the Paluxy River bed that had man tracks and dinosaur tracks side by side,
Could you perhaps elaborate a bit? What is your source? I would love to read more about it.
Tor
I don't think carbon dating can be used for finds that are so old.
Rather, dating can involve studying the geological layer in which the dino is found. These layers can be dated with other methods. I think some of these methods involve radioactive dating, but not of C14.
If it was a scientist that said $77 million, then it the accuracy is of $1 million years. If accuracy had been higher,then it would have said '77.0'. If accuracy had been lower, it would have said '75-80'.
Tor
Based on the most conservative estimates for variables in the Drake Equation [seti.org], odds are we're not alone.
This is not quite true. In particular, nobody has been able to build life from scratch in a lab and nobody knows the exact reaction that needs to happen.
This means, that the probability of life arising on a suitable planet (f_l) is completely unknown. For all we know, it could be so low, that it is bound to happen at the most once in the entire universe.
Personally, I don't think that this is the case, and I am eagerly awaiting the results of future trips to Mars and Europa. If they find primitive life there, then that changes a lot.
Tor
They're westernized capitalists; they don't care about quality.
Uhm, westernized capitalists make what the customers are willing to pay for.
Lenin's mummy is wearing a high-quality western suit. There was simply no one in the Soviet Union who knew how to make such a thing. The western captialists, however, were accustomed to demanding customers and knew that they had to make goods of the highest quality to get their business.
Tor
3 days after the US release until Epsiode 1 VCDs where widespread in South East Asia. The producers must have taken the very first flight out after the first showing, and then started large-scale dupliation immediately.
Some friends of mine - Star Wars fans - were backpacking at that very time. They wanted to wait until they could see the movie in a proper theater but found this almost impossible as every other bar/ restaurant/ hotel was showing the movie...
Tor
Ending this form of piracy will result in the Hong Kong pirates coming up with better ways to steal movies
So, why exactly aren't they using the 'better ways' already?
Tor
Before you try too hard, it is worth spending a few seconds considering if the text might already be electronically available, for free.
Many classics novels can be found at: Project Gutenberg
Most scientific journals are also available electronically these days, and libraries typically have paid access.
Tor
Many responses to my original post point out that it is not hard to get a hold of pirated anti-virus software.
But the point I tried to make was that for anti-virus software to be effective, you need frequent (daily, for corporate systems) updates from the vendor. While I don't know this for a fact, I would assume that you need a registration or an original serial number to get the latest update.
Generally speaking, the more interaction between a vendor and a user, the more dificult it is to pirate. Where there is no interaction, like music, it is completely impossible for a company to stop pirated copies.
Tor
Anti-virus software is actually more difficult to pirat than most other software.
The idea is that you must visit the vendor's web site frequently and download the latest update.
Tor
/Tor
I think picking random sites would actually provide more information
Randomness is the opposite of information. If the sites are truly selected at random, then nothing can be infered from it (other than possibly that the killer is using a randomizing algorithm).
Of course, if the algorithm is 'a random place within 10 miles of my house', then it does not work, because then the locations are not very random.
Tor
In order for it to be lethal, it needs to be shot at about 1000 mps (Mach 3 ish).
The issue is not really lethality in the sense of inflicting wounds upon a hit. Even a much slower buller will punch through the skin and cause plenty of harm. Rather the speed is necessary to make the bullet go straight, accurate and far. (Maybe that is what you mean with lethal?)
Tor
Even if the serial killers are rational enough to change their patterns, it is still (at least) a small win for the police. The killers will have to go outside their comfort zones, into areas with which they are less familiar and/or require more travel.
Tor
Clearly the principles of the software are very sound - and the product has been used successfully in the past.
However, now media is writing extensively about the software and the algorithms involved. A shrewd killer could use such information. He could think again about where to act, perhaps selecting sites at random, or selectively so that they would mislead the program.
Tor
What sucks for the civilizaiton on that planet is that they may never learn to navigate spacecraft since the 3 body problem created by having 2 suns is inherently chaotic.
Pretty much everything in this comment is wrong. There are chaotic and non-chaotic solutions to the three-body problem. Sun, earth, moon is an example of the latter.
I suspect that if a planet was in an a chaotic orbit between two stars, then civilizations are not so likely, because climate variations could be extreme (e.g., Mars orbit one year, Venus orbit the next). But if a civilization did exist, then I can't see why they could not learn spacecraft navigation. Thr first challenge is to build rockets powerful enought to leave the planet - this is independent of the planet's orbit. Once they have gotten that far, I am sure the chaotic orbit wont stop them from sending the spacecraft to other planets.
Tor
I know that we're looking for existing life or possible places to live, but isn't it very possible there is some sort of life that lives in a drastically different environment than we do? There could very well be some crazy lifeform that lives on gas giants.
Yes there could, but that would be pure speculation. Since we know of only one planet with life, it makes perfect sence to start our search for alien life on similar planets. And it is not like we are throwing away all information on gas giants, on the contrary those are the ones that are most often discovered because of their size.
I don't see how moon colonies (exploitation of nearby systems) should be exclusive of extra-solar planet research (distant exploration). If it is a cost issue, it is worth mentioning that the former is many orders of magnitude more expensive than the latter.
Tor
The main conditions for humans to thrive aught to be size (and thus gravity), temperature, and atmosphere.
/Tor
Sure, being on a moon around a bigger planet would make for funny (i.e., not like on Earth) day cycles, tides, eclipses, seasons and so on. But those are secondary considerations.
Where would you prefer to live, on Mars on on Endor (given that Endor has say no seasonal variations, a 100 hour day cycle, and a spectacular eclipse twice a year).
Like a lot of other submitters I really doubt your claims.
Why not do this. Find a cryptography scientist, and give him this challenge:
Ask him to look at your algorithm. He should swear that if it is an unbreakable, reusable OTP, he will not to tell anyone until it is patented. If not, he can do whatever.
Any expert is bound to take that challenge. If it works, you will be indifferent. If not, you save yourself the money and time of patent applications.
Tor
I agree, but there is actually one valid point made.
OTPs are not quite as impractical as they used to be. The pain of distributing the key is mitigated by the fact that it is really easy to store long OTPs. The suggested keychain would last for almost a lifetime of email, even if you don't have any magic reusability.
Tor
For commercial satellite launches, 5% of the BLOW UP OR DON't MAKE IT.
Which would indicate, that if they could be made perfectly safe, there would be a 5% decrease in average cost (no longer need for the now customary insurance worth 5% of the launch cost).
The idea of an elevator is to reduce costs by say 90 or 95%.
Tor
Furthermore, it has been decided once and for all never to introduce any more prices, even if they are only 'in the memory of'.
That would simply cause too many slashdot trolls.
Tor
I see it coming: "Our next speaker, Prof. Inodoro Pereyra, 1/8th of the Nobel Prize 2004"
Well, currently the prize can't be split by more than three people.
However, there are some discussion about changing that. The reason is that more and more often new discoveries come through joint efforts among many groups. The lone theoretician whith a blackboard is not so common any more.
Swedish Tor
Ups, I misread your comment a bit. Please ignore my previous post.
Let me start over. If I understand the idea correctly, the main advantage of your system is that you claim that it is safer than today's rockets.
But really, safety is not the main problem of today's rockets. The main problem is that it is so darn expensive to get something into orbit, even when everything works. The space elevator suggests a (still unrealistic, I agree) way to dramatically reduce these costs.
If the laser ignited propellants could lift at the same cost then clearly your solution is much better, but is that indeed the case? It is not like such a propulsion system has anything to do with the elevator propulsion system. It seems to me that you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Sure, this is simpler and safer, but does it address the problem that the elevator is designed to solve?
Tor
A far simpler and cheaper solution is a massive ground based laser array. (which incidentally is how they are proposing to power this thing...why not skip the cable and build a much bigger laser). The beam would vaporize propellant attached to the bottom of the spacecraft, eliminating perhaps 90% of the danger of rocket travel (the rocket blowing up has always been the biggest risk...if it uses a nonvolatile, inert propellant) and reducing the cost to a tiny fraction of current expenses.
Hum. There is obviously a huge difference between the two propulsion systems. The space elevator version would use electric motors, powered by solar cells, which in turn got their power from a laser.
What you are saying is that shooting the laser on a more traditional rocket would make it 90% more efficient. Could you elaborate on that...? I don't think I buy the quality argument either. The risk of normal rockets is not that they loose some fraction of their output and then fall down. Rather, they tend to fail rather violently when something goes wrong. I don't think an array of extremely powerful lasers will change that.
Tor
All the arsenic is still there, it's just become a smaller, more manageable problem.
It does not even have to be a problem, but rather a resource. Perhaps arsenic is not that useful, but any metal certainly is.
Tor