In his book "Stranger in a Strange Land", a human raised by Martians finds himself trying to understand the ways of Earthly humans. One day he groks the concept of "money". Good stuff!
When they can offer equal EVIDENCE, then they might be deserving of equal time. So far, though, all they have is hearsay --worthless in a courtroom, and worthless in science.
There is always a way. Consider dumping the phone into liquid helium, before applying the Dremel. Batteries don't work so well at cold temperatures. Software, including self-erasing software, can't run without a power source....
I've always liked the idea of space elevators, but I've also been bothered by a problem that I've never seen addressed, "micrometeoroid erosion". Sure, you can build one. But how long is it going to last, with nothing to protect the main cable/strands/shaft/whatever-you-want-to-call-it from a near-endless --though admittedly low-rate-- series of impacts by speedy dust particles?
I'm expecting a report any time now regarding hydrogen-fueled vehicles, and leaks of hydrogen. See, ozone and hydrogen are hypergolic; they react on contact, so each ozone molecule that reacts is no longer there. Net result, because hydrogen naturally rises to the stratosphere where the Earth's ozone layer is, hydrogen leaks could lead to a bigger ozone hole than the chlorocarbons made....
Perhaps the solution is to re-think the need to manage any engineer good enough to qualify as a leader. And I'll disagree with an earlier post about "managing the resources", because that task falls under "logistics", and any good engineer understands logistics.
So, concluding from the above, companies should hire good engineers and not hire managers.
"Shouldn't they be looking at a different solution here?"
OK. Laser light qualifies as polarized light. So, if the pilots wear polarized glasses (with rotatable lenses), then they can block the light almost as easily as it can be shined at them.
What of the fact that Internet Explorer was "built into" the Windows Operating System? It seems to me that so long as IE is vulnerable, so is Windows itself. So, since lots of crackers want to use the computing capacity of other's machines for their own purposes, IE will remain a major target because Windows is the real target.
The main article is kind of silly. If I write an "app" that uses only HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, then that app can run in the browser, an the Operating System, whether it be Chrome or Windows or iOS or Android, doesn't matter in the least, so long as the browser is modern enough to handle HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Here is an example of such an "app".
I'm thinking about all those TV commercials telling you about the cost of funerals, and how you need insurance to pay for it. What about organ sales, to help cover those costs?
I prefer to think that the definition of what is "valuable" is subject to change. This idea describes a kind of "overview" regarding converting just about anything into a pile of resources. The main cost is Energy. And in space, solar energy can be very cheap. IF they bother to put a solar-power station into Space, that is, with the goal not of using it to beam energy to Earth, but to use it to "smelt" (for want of a more precise word) space rocks down into useful oxygen, silicon, aluminum, iron, magnesium, etc. Then it won't matter in the least if one of those space rocks happens to be full of platinum.
The truck should be made available in an "unpainted" version. Remember the main reason for paint on steel-bodied cars is rust-prevention, but aluminum is strongly resistant to rust in most places (probably not close to an ocean, however), and should not need either the paint job or the associated weight of dried paint.
Not to mention the well-known fact that batteries have a limited number of discharge/recharge cycles. So, when the batteries in the cars eventually fail, the car-owners have to pay to replace them, not the building-owners.
Until the tin oxides/corrodes. What are they going to coat the tin with, to prevent that? (And can they put that protective coating on faster than oxygen can get at the single-atom layer of tin?)
The normal variation on that theme has to do with Governments (usually local) doing the defending for you, per the police forces. Meanwhile, Government also arbitrates between claims -- if two dudes claim the same piece of landscape for development purposes, who gets it? So, even if the Moon Treaty needs to continue keeping any one Nation from claiming ownership of the Moon or other bodies, it needs to have added to it some sort of system for arbitrating between ownership-claims made by others. And, possibly, defending its decisions. Else there will indeed be all the chaos that can result from "might makes right".
I'll keep my fangs, and damn the government. And, damn the mindless sheep as well.
There is more to it than just that. Our civilization has allowed more and more purely physical power to be accessible by average folks --think of any 200-horsepower car as being equivalent to owning a herd of 200 horses, and think about all the work that such a herd might have done before the Industrial Revolution. Well, Power is supposed to be associated with Responsibility. It is Education that provides information about "how to use Power responsibly and ethically" --but there are always folks who either don't pay proper attention to the lessons, or don't care, because they want what they want, regardless of the consequences. Thus did the Power of three jet aircraft become misused as missiles, destroying two tall buildings and severely damaging a third large building. If the overall Trend continues, regarding accessibility of physical Power by average folks, then eventually average folks will have access to Power equivalent to an H-bomb. (Note that already lots of folks seem to have access to Modern Biological Power....) One of the proposed Answers to the Fermi Paradox is that every technological culture will eventually face a challenge regarding how to deal with such Power in the hands of ordinary small-minded selfish (and even psychotic) folks --and that most cultures don't survive that challenge. I will disagree that clamping down on Freedom is the correct solution; there are stories about "mad generals", after all. But we most certainly need a solution, and sooner rather than later.
Does anyone know how vulnerable dolphins are to jellyfish stings? They don't have a layer of protective scales like fish, and there is a long-standing mystery regarding dolphin beachings.
But they might be able to get closer if they used 2 balloons, in an unusual way, with an unusual gondola design. The first balloon they fill with helium at the ground, and it takes you pretty high, well above most of the oxygen in the atmosphere. The gondola has a section full of hydrogen-storage tanks. At altitude, the second balloon is deployed and starts filling with hydrogen from those tanks. The first balloon's helium can be pumped into those same tanks, as each is emptied of hydrogen. The first balloon and the tank-holding gondola section can now be detached and allowed to fall; a parachute would deploy so that the helium can be recovered for another flight. Meanwhile, any hydrogen balloon has better lifting capacity than the same-size helium balloon, and since this balloon deployed at high altitude, there is no significant fire hazard. And with the gondola now reduced significantly in weight, the appropriate pun regarding the maximum altitude is, "The sky's the limit".
There is a fundamental problem that no ordinary chemical battery will ever be able get "through". Basically, all ordinary chemical batteries involve two things, which we can call "fuel" and "oxidizer". The two things are stored separately; they are allowed to chemically combine, generating electricity in the process, and they are separated back into fuel and oxidizer when the battery is recharged. The mass of a battery is therefore constant, and it is always being carried around by the vehicle, regardless of the charge-level of the battery. Meanwhile, ordinary car engines only carry fuel around; they don't need to carry oxidizer because they get that from the surrounding atmosphere. Furthermore, when the fuel is combined with the oxidizer, the waste products (mostly carbon dioxide and water) are simply dumped; they don't have to be carried around like the "spent" fuel+oxidizer in a battery continues to be carried around. So, logically, alternatives to the entire concept of ordinary chemical batteries need to be sought. The first-level alternative that comes to mind is something known as a "zinc-air" battery. It gets its oxidizer from the air. However, after the chemical reaction occurs, the waste product is still carried around (so the zinc can be recovered when the battery is recharged). It it not as "good", in terms of vehicle mass, as the dumping of wastes that ordinary gas-powered vehicles can do. The second-level alternative is a "fuel cell". It also gets its oxidizer from the air, and its waste products can also be dumped. Fuel cells have an additional advantage over ordinary car engines; the engine extracts the potential energy from fuel at perhaps 45% efficiency, while the fuel cell can extract the potential energy at perhaps 70% efficiency. The problem here is that most fuel-cell research is concentrating on using hydrogen as the fuel, and it has the big problem of being very-low-density stuff. You have to carry a large volume of it around, in order to be carrying around a decent amount of total fuel energy. They need to research fuel cells that "burn" hydrocarbons that can be easily carried as liquids, much denser/less-volumous than gases like hydrogen. Next, moving sideways among the alternatives, is the flywheel energy-storage system. There is something peculiar about the way the research in that field has differed from electric-battery research. They would like to build a flywheel that can store about the same energy as represented by a vehicle's tank of gasoline. Meanwhile, because of the fundamental problem of batteries, they adopted the "hybrid vehicle" concept because they knew they could not get that kind of total energy or travel-range from batteries. Well, why not throw out the batteries in a hybrid, and use a flywheel instead? There are some very immediate advantages to doing that. First is simply that existing flywheel-energy-storage tech can easily match the range of existing batteries in hybrids --and they flywheels weigh less. Second is that the "conversion efficiency" from stored energy into dynamic energy is much better for flywheels (90+%) than it is for batteries (about 70%) --that's a major reason why a smaller flywheel can store as much as a larger battery pack. Third is the "recharge time" --revving up a flywheel, storing energy, can consume a lot of electricity very quickly, much much more quickly than charging a battery pack. Fourth has to do with the way a vehical can accelerate. It happens that to cruise along at freeway speeds, the car needs less than 20 horsepower to do that. But to accelerate quickly, to get up to that speed, that is why a car would have 100+ extra horsepower. Well, both batteries and flywheels can quickly dump lots of energy into electric motors, which means that in a hybird car, the gas engine only needs enough power for long-distance cruising, plus some extra to recharge the batteries or flywheel. But the flywheel is still a bit better than the batteries, because a flywheel can be revved up and down very easily, whil
Slashdot Mirror
For any scammer who pretends to install an XP patch, but actually installs malware.
In his book "Stranger in a Strange Land", a human raised by Martians finds himself trying to understand the ways of Earthly humans. One day he groks the concept of "money". Good stuff!
"No" to what, exactly? XP is probably OK as part of an "intranet", especially if that intranet is isolated from the Internet.
When they can offer equal EVIDENCE, then they might be deserving of equal time. So far, though, all they have is hearsay --worthless in a courtroom, and worthless in science.
There is always a way. Consider dumping the phone into liquid helium, before applying the Dremel. Batteries don't work so well at cold temperatures. Software, including self-erasing software, can't run without a power source....
"Superiority" by Arthur C. Clarke
"The Power of Progression" by Isaac Asimov
"Time For The Stars" by Robert A. Heinlein, with particular attention to the "Long Range Foundation"
I've always liked the idea of space elevators, but I've also been bothered by a problem that I've never seen addressed, "micrometeoroid erosion". Sure, you can build one. But how long is it going to last, with nothing to protect the main cable/strands/shaft/whatever-you-want-to-call-it from a near-endless --though admittedly low-rate-- series of impacts by speedy dust particles?
Even if the proposal became a Standard, that doesn't mean EITHER web-server developers, or browser developers, must actually implement it.
I'm expecting a report any time now regarding hydrogen-fueled vehicles, and leaks of hydrogen. See, ozone and hydrogen are hypergolic; they react on contact, so each ozone molecule that reacts is no longer there. Net result, because hydrogen naturally rises to the stratosphere where the Earth's ozone layer is, hydrogen leaks could lead to a bigger ozone hole than the chlorocarbons made....
Perhaps the solution is to re-think the need to manage any engineer good enough to qualify as a leader. And I'll disagree with an earlier post about "managing the resources", because that task falls under "logistics", and any good engineer understands logistics.
So, concluding from the above, companies should hire good engineers and not hire managers.
"Shouldn't they be looking at a different solution here?"
OK. Laser light qualifies as polarized light. So, if the pilots wear polarized glasses (with rotatable lenses), then they can block the light almost as easily as it can be shined at them.
What of the fact that Internet Explorer was "built into" the Windows Operating System? It seems to me that so long as IE is vulnerable, so is Windows itself. So, since lots of crackers want to use the computing capacity of other's machines for their own purposes, IE will remain a major target because Windows is the real target.
The main article is kind of silly. If I write an "app" that uses only HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, then that app can run in the browser, an the Operating System, whether it be Chrome or Windows or iOS or Android, doesn't matter in the least, so long as the browser is modern enough to handle HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Here is an example of such an "app".
I'm thinking about all those TV commercials telling you about the cost of funerals, and how you need insurance to pay for it. What about organ sales, to help cover those costs?
I prefer to think that the definition of what is "valuable" is subject to change. This idea describes a kind of "overview" regarding converting just about anything into a pile of resources. The main cost is Energy. And in space, solar energy can be very cheap. IF they bother to put a solar-power station into Space, that is, with the goal not of using it to beam energy to Earth, but to use it to "smelt" (for want of a more precise word) space rocks down into useful oxygen, silicon, aluminum, iron, magnesium, etc. Then it won't matter in the least if one of those space rocks happens to be full of platinum.
For the top of the learning curve, see the Coral Castle.
The truck should be made available in an "unpainted" version. Remember the main reason for paint on steel-bodied cars is rust-prevention, but aluminum is strongly resistant to rust in most places (probably not close to an ocean, however), and should not need either the paint job or the associated weight of dried paint.
I'd say it is not needed. Because anything described as "remotely programmable" means "remotely abuse-able". Botnet operators will love it.
Not to mention the well-known fact that batteries have a limited number of discharge/recharge cycles. So, when the batteries in the cars eventually fail, the car-owners have to pay to replace them, not the building-owners.
Until the tin oxides/corrodes. What are they going to coat the tin with, to prevent that? (And can they put that protective coating on faster than oxygen can get at the single-atom layer of tin?)
The normal variation on that theme has to do with Governments (usually local) doing the defending for you, per the police forces. Meanwhile, Government also arbitrates between claims -- if two dudes claim the same piece of landscape for development purposes, who gets it? So, even if the Moon Treaty needs to continue keeping any one Nation from claiming ownership of the Moon or other bodies, it needs to have added to it some sort of system for arbitrating between ownership-claims made by others. And, possibly, defending its decisions. Else there will indeed be all the chaos that can result from "might makes right".
I'll keep my fangs, and damn the government. And, damn the mindless sheep as well.
There is more to it than just that. Our civilization has allowed more and more purely physical power to be accessible by average folks --think of any 200-horsepower car as being equivalent to owning a herd of 200 horses, and think about all the work that such a herd might have done before the Industrial Revolution. Well, Power is supposed to be associated with Responsibility. It is Education that provides information about "how to use Power responsibly and ethically" --but there are always folks who either don't pay proper attention to the lessons, or don't care, because they want what they want, regardless of the consequences. Thus did the Power of three jet aircraft become misused as missiles, destroying two tall buildings and severely damaging a third large building. If the overall Trend continues, regarding accessibility of physical Power by average folks, then eventually average folks will have access to Power equivalent to an H-bomb. (Note that already lots of folks seem to have access to Modern Biological Power....) One of the proposed Answers to the Fermi Paradox is that every technological culture will eventually face a challenge regarding how to deal with such Power in the hands of ordinary small-minded selfish (and even psychotic) folks --and that most cultures don't survive that challenge. I will disagree that clamping down on Freedom is the correct solution; there are stories about "mad generals", after all. But we most certainly need a solution, and sooner rather than later.
Does anyone know how vulnerable dolphins are to jellyfish stings? They don't have a layer of protective scales like fish, and there is a long-standing mystery regarding dolphin beachings.
But they might be able to get closer if they used 2 balloons, in an unusual way, with an unusual gondola design. The first balloon they fill with helium at the ground, and it takes you pretty high, well above most of the oxygen in the atmosphere. The gondola has a section full of hydrogen-storage tanks. At altitude, the second balloon is deployed and starts filling with hydrogen from those tanks. The first balloon's helium can be pumped into those same tanks, as each is emptied of hydrogen. The first balloon and the tank-holding gondola section can now be detached and allowed to fall; a parachute would deploy so that the helium can be recovered for another flight. Meanwhile, any hydrogen balloon has better lifting capacity than the same-size helium balloon, and since this balloon deployed at high altitude, there is no significant fire hazard. And with the gondola now reduced significantly in weight, the appropriate pun regarding the maximum altitude is, "The sky's the limit".
There is a fundamental problem that no ordinary chemical battery will ever be able get "through". Basically, all ordinary chemical batteries involve two things, which we can call "fuel" and "oxidizer". The two things are stored separately; they are allowed to chemically combine, generating electricity in the process, and they are separated back into fuel and oxidizer when the battery is recharged. The mass of a battery is therefore constant, and it is always being carried around by the vehicle, regardless of the charge-level of the battery. Meanwhile, ordinary car engines only carry fuel around; they don't need to carry oxidizer because they get that from the surrounding atmosphere. Furthermore, when the fuel is combined with the oxidizer, the waste products (mostly carbon dioxide and water) are simply dumped; they don't have to be carried around like the "spent" fuel+oxidizer in a battery continues to be carried around. So, logically, alternatives to the entire concept of ordinary chemical batteries need to be sought. The first-level alternative that comes to mind is something known as a "zinc-air" battery. It gets its oxidizer from the air. However, after the chemical reaction occurs, the waste product is still carried around (so the zinc can be recovered when the battery is recharged). It it not as "good", in terms of vehicle mass, as the dumping of wastes that ordinary gas-powered vehicles can do. The second-level alternative is a "fuel cell". It also gets its oxidizer from the air, and its waste products can also be dumped. Fuel cells have an additional advantage over ordinary car engines; the engine extracts the potential energy from fuel at perhaps 45% efficiency, while the fuel cell can extract the potential energy at perhaps 70% efficiency. The problem here is that most fuel-cell research is concentrating on using hydrogen as the fuel, and it has the big problem of being very-low-density stuff. You have to carry a large volume of it around, in order to be carrying around a decent amount of total fuel energy. They need to research fuel cells that "burn" hydrocarbons that can be easily carried as liquids, much denser/less-volumous than gases like hydrogen. Next, moving sideways among the alternatives, is the flywheel energy-storage system. There is something peculiar about the way the research in that field has differed from electric-battery research. They would like to build a flywheel that can store about the same energy as represented by a vehicle's tank of gasoline. Meanwhile, because of the fundamental problem of batteries, they adopted the "hybrid vehicle" concept because they knew they could not get that kind of total energy or travel-range from batteries. Well, why not throw out the batteries in a hybrid, and use a flywheel instead? There are some very immediate advantages to doing that. First is simply that existing flywheel-energy-storage tech can easily match the range of existing batteries in hybrids --and they flywheels weigh less. Second is that the "conversion efficiency" from stored energy into dynamic energy is much better for flywheels (90+%) than it is for batteries (about 70%) --that's a major reason why a smaller flywheel can store as much as a larger battery pack. Third is the "recharge time" --revving up a flywheel, storing energy, can consume a lot of electricity very quickly, much much more quickly than charging a battery pack. Fourth has to do with the way a vehical can accelerate. It happens that to cruise along at freeway speeds, the car needs less than 20 horsepower to do that. But to accelerate quickly, to get up to that speed, that is why a car would have 100+ extra horsepower. Well, both batteries and flywheels can quickly dump lots of energy into electric motors, which means that in a hybird car, the gas engine only needs enough power for long-distance cruising, plus some extra to recharge the batteries or flywheel. But the flywheel is still a bit better than the batteries, because a flywheel can be revved up and down very easily, whil