You don't heat the steel to demolish it, you blow it apart. Whether there is molten steel is irrelevant to whether it was demolished by man-placed demolitions or airplane.
You can't 'concentrate' heat. If you have a campfire stove, and you cook a can of beans on it, no matter how long you have the can on the stove, it will *never* get hotter than the flame.
Wikipedia says that jet fuel burns at 550 farenheit. So no matter how long the jet fuel or offices burned, they could never get hotter than 600 F, which is the temperature at which jet fuel and office material burn.
Then the question is, if there was molten steel, how did it the steel get so hot? We know from physics that it can't be jet fuel or offices. So the question is, what produced the heat. Certain chemical reactions, such as thermite and thermate produce heat in excess of 2500 degrees Fahrenheit -- more than enough to melt steel. So, one explanation for how the towers and WTC7 were brought down is Thermite cutter charges.
Now when that single guy gets married*, has 4 kids, and a parent becomes decrepit/disabled and decide to move in...?
In most places in the world, that single guy is already living at home with his parents, until he decides to get married, in which case... the wife moves in.
You don't really find many bachelor pads or group of roommates sharing a place.
Steel does not need to be 'melted' to be weakened well beyond safety margins, and beyond its required design strength. At moderately high temperatures it is weakened significantly.
Important: note that I only linked to part one. I couldn't find any links to part two or three anywhere else on that page. Be sure to read parts two and three, any where you can find them.
Hey, thanks for no turning this into a flamefest:)
If you haven't run across this already, check out Dmitry Orlov's "Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century". He's a Russian national ( I think ) who lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union. He sees a lot of similarity between us and them ( He calls it the SU ( Soviet Union ) and the US ), and thinks that the US is in for a collapse. I think the psychological shock will be the biggest hurdle for the American people, but after that, he says the two big things are 1. have a small garden plot and 2. rely on your social networks. Ultimately, he ends on a very positive, hopeful note. Americans haven't been exposed to decades of hope-sapping communist work programs, and still believe in themselves, and believe they can 'make it' by hard work. I'm starting to believe that too!
The next few decades will be a fun, interesting time!
Sounds good until you realize that the average American household has $8,000 worth of credit card debt--not to mention mortgages, car loans, etc. Most Americans are one or two paychecks away from financial ruin. Americans in general are too spineless, and dependent on the "system", to ever revolt against it.
There's a quote from anthropology "People don't protest when their bellies are full".
Staggering debt is a great way to foment a revolution. So, what is so wonderful about this system that makes people so dependent on it? The fact that it makes you a serf? When people are in financial ruin, and have nothing else to lose, *that's* when they hit the streets. When they have no food. When they have nothing left to lose but their shackles of debt.
Think about it. What if I said "I can't take it any more. I can't afford food, car payments, credit card payments, and my mortgage. Starting tomorrow, I'm not paying my bills." What would happen? We'll the bank would foreclose on my house, the sheriff would kick me out of my house, and the tow truck would come and take my car, and my credit card would be declined everywhere I went.
Now, what would happen if *everybody* decided to do that? What if almost everybody did that *because they had no money*? There aren't enough sheriffs and tow-trucks to take away everyone's things. And all the businesses need people to keep buying their stuff! We would just stay in our homes, driving our cars when we could afford gas, and all of our credit card bills and credit ratings become as meaningless as a pile of monopoly money.
Fighting an insurgency on home soil, the US army would be subject to none of these disadvantages. Language and cultural barriers would be slim, and the problem of supply lines would be significantly ameliorated. Meanwhile, the insurgents would have to find safe havens, which would be significantly more difficult, given that the US is a larger country, and has a significantly larger interior region that would be relatively safe from border raids.
Yes, but at the same time, the US military fighting its own people would be a tough idea to swallow, both for civilians and the military. The whole society would split, right down the middle. There would be families split, communities split, states split. And each side would have sympathizers working from inside for the other team.
Yes, the American soldier asked to fight his own people would have the advantage of cultural literacy, but he wouldn't know who to trust. Perhaps his commanding officer would defect to the resistance. The Law and Order side would 'accidentally' kill civilians to teach towns and neighborhoods a lesson. The True Patroits would use guerrilla tactics to fight an imposing enemy, which will look a lot like terrorism to Ma and Pa in Kansas. The average citizen won't stand for an oppressive state, nor for terrorists who claim to defend our freedoms. Who would you side with?
What I was trying to convey is that the US armed forces aren't all going to buy into the idea that a significant portion of the American population has suddenly become terrorist.
Yes, in a few instances, some guard members have shot and killed unarmed civilians. The same things happens with police, and happened during the labor movements during the first part of the 20th century. However, the people won't stand for a government that has declared war on its citizens and uses the army to enforce it. Sure, there will be people who will be killed by the military. But, when power is used unjustly, the people see that, and rise up against it.
A myopic American perspective. Have you ever heard of South America? Time and time again, brutal dictators have been overthrown by poor Indians. When things get bad enough, the people rise up.
I don't know, I don't buy this idea that "In our modern technological age, governments will have complete control over the populace". In olden days, communications were difficult -- basically men on horseback. But look at all the uprisings and slave revolts that have happened. Now, with the internet, cell phones, text message, radio, television, I think it would be many times *easier* to 'route around' government propaganda and information stoppages.
But won't the government just order the telecom companies to stop all of the "bad" communications? Good luck! How could they do that without shutting down *all* communications? You can't have a computer reading each one. You couldn't stop the messages without some government agent reviewing every single one. And if the government ever put such a kink in our system, to where people couldn't get to work and couldn't get food, *then* people would really start resisting. Everyone has their breaking point.
Remember, when you start talking about a big enough government program, "they" become "us". Not everyone in telecom would comply. Certain people would actually work from the inside to support the resistance! It's not like all resistors are on the front lines, taking up guns against the storm troopers. Most resistors have normal jobs in society, and they do a little something on the side to support the resistance. Maybe intel, maybe a safe house, maybe they divert a little food somewhere.
evolutions don't start with well-to-do and influential members of society.
They generally start with people who are on the fringes and are regarded by "authorities" as "up to no good"
That is true, but successful revolutions are successful because the masses jump on board. I don't believe that it's the fringe group who stirs up the masses; I believe it's the masses who are dissatisfied with the status quo, and after a time, see the fringe group as a reasonable alternative, and then decide to get on board with the program.
The masses choose who rules them. In good times, they stick with the current elite; in bad, they switch to the fringe.
Well, soldiers wouldn't fire on innocent civilians, but I reason they have no problem with "terrorists". People carying guns don't look innocent and if they pick up their guns to fight, expect a big intel spin on it. They will do it, I have no doubt about that.
The average American soldier probably doesn't have a problem considering an Iraqi civilian a 'terrorist', and therefore firing on him, but he might have a more difficult time buying the idea that a mass uprising of averge, everyday white Americans is "Al-Qaida in America".
Why is it that everyone piles on this guy for saying "intensive purposes", yet when someone corrects the incorrect usage of "begs the question" English is all of a sudden a descriptive language with meanings that evolve?
I think it's because "begs the question" in modern English basically means "raises the question". If it wasn't a phrase translated from Latin that we inherited from the European University system, "begs the question" would mean today basically what people mistake it to mean.
OTOH, "all intensive purposes" has a different meaning from "all intents and purposes", and when people use it in a phrase manner, they often mistake its actual meaning.
It's like misusing the word "literally". "I was literally blown away" -- no, you weren't literally blown away. You're just saying literally to add emphasis to your story, not for it's actual meaning. When people say "all intensive purposes", they are saying that for its phrase value, not the actual meaning.
This is why I always thought that cloud computing based on servers would be disastrous. What if the server goes down? Well, here's a case in point. You lose everything.
I proposed an idea like a P2P backup. Say you have some 20 GB you want to back up. You make 20 GB available on your system, and fire up a P2P backup program. You partner with people who want to backup also, trade backup space, and voila! You have a distributed backup system. It's all encrypted, so you can't get into other people's stuff on your system, and vice-versa. Periodically, the app checks to make sure that all your backup partners are available. If not, it starts negotiating a backup with a new partner.
Of course, you don't want to lose your stuff to a single host going down, you would have a ratio of 3:1 or 4:1 to make sure that you have high availability.
Nonetheless, it demonstrates the failure of what the originator called the 'golden rule' -- "If everyone did X, would the result be good or bad?" That alone is not sufficient to make a good system of ethics.
What if you decided to go down to your local store and buy a soda? Not choosing any particular store or route, but just the store closest to you, whatever route is fastest, and buying something. Now, what if everyone did that? Chose to go to the closest store to them and buy something. There would be mass crowds, congestion, perhaps some tramplings, and stores would quickly run out of stock of popular items. What seems an innocent, amoral decision would quickly usher in a capitalist apocalypse if "everyone decided to do it".:)
It's easy to create a great game level and put that in a demo. It's harder to create a complete game with great levels all the way to the end. Sometimes, you buy a game and find out that the best level was the demo!
The problem with your attitude is that it fails the "golden rule" - would my behavior still be OK if everybody did what I do?
If everybody chose the same route to work that you did, wouldn't that create a major traffic jam, and likely congest the entire city for the morning? If so, isn't it therefore *wrong* for you to take that route to work?
Is this guy a real game developer? Has he been using computers since age 13? It always seemed to me that cracking the game was part of the territory -- almost as if cracking the protection mechanism was part of the game itself, the first puzzle. A friend would buy a game, and then everyone who wanted a copy would search BBSes for keys for the game, or ask an older brother if they knew a password. Did this guy grow up in a different world, or what? Or did he, as a young computer user, studiously make sure that all of his games were legitimately licensed?
People on the Autism spectrum, including people with Asperger's, are able to hear high-frequency sounds much better than the average person. I suspect there are a lot of such people on slashdot.
I worked with a guy once at a computer recycling place. He clearly had Asperger's, from the way his 'stories' were a list of facts delivered in a monotone, to his encyclopedic knowledge of model numbers and release years, to his inability to explain himself to anybody in charge. He could tell if a monitor was good or not by plugging it in and just hearing the tone that the transformer ( or whatever electrical component it was ) made. No need to plug it in to a video source or anything.
BTW, I downloaded all the tones at Free Mosquito Ringtones, and I was able to hear all of them, from 8 khz to 22 khz. ( Only 18 year olds or younger are supposed to be able to hear the 20+ khz ). I'm turning 30 this month; I suppose next month I won't be able to hear all of them.;)
The companies might have a valid case about 'not being able to survive without each other' if they didn't make almost suicidally bad business decisions like paying Howard Stern 300 million dollars only to find out he can't bring in enough subscribers to even break even on his paycheck.
What are you talking about? The big talking point when the new broke that Sirius had signed Stern was that "Oh, Stern has to bring in one million subscribers for them to break even."
Sirius gained 1 million subscribers, going from 1 million to 2 million subscribers, in the year between the time Stern signed and the show started broadcasting. 2.5 years later, they are over 8 million subscribers.
So, to recap -- Sirius had 1.1 million subscribers on Dec. 31st, 2004. They are now over 8 million. Could they have done that without Stern? No. Without Stern, they would be out of business. Stern has paid off in spades. Well worth the investment.
First off, let me apologize for the fact that not everyone is born with knowledge of relational database features.
Now, for the sake of being generally well-informed, what other reasons would one want to use prepared statements? What was the reason(s) that prepared statements were introduced in the first place?
The article mentions that this device uses an electromagnetic pump to move the heat around. In my naivete, I suggested a similar thing, without a pump. I imagined a sort of metal lava-lamp, where at the base, next to the CPU, blobs of molten metal would rise up towards the top of the heat sink. As they rose, they would cool off ( with the help of the fan) , and then sink again to collect more heat. So, the outside of the heat sink would be copper or aluminum or something, and the inside would be some low-temperature metal like tin. Traditional fin architecture would assist in dispersing the heat.
Open a window and shut off any heating and air conditioning
Dispose of any fabrics ( clothes, bedclothes, etc ) that may have come into contact with the bulb or mercury.
I know that the US EPA has had a less than stellar record under the Bush administration, but why are they so much more paranoid about mercury in CFLs than Environment Canada?
Slashdot Mirror
You don't heat the steel to demolish it, you blow it apart. Whether there is molten steel is irrelevant to whether it was demolished by man-placed demolitions or airplane.
You can't 'concentrate' heat. If you have a campfire stove, and you cook a can of beans on it, no matter how long you have the can on the stove, it will *never* get hotter than the flame.
Wikipedia says that jet fuel burns at 550 farenheit. So no matter how long the jet fuel or offices burned, they could never get hotter than 600 F, which is the temperature at which jet fuel and office material burn.
Then the question is, if there was molten steel, how did it the steel get so hot? We know from physics that it can't be jet fuel or offices. So the question is, what produced the heat. Certain chemical reactions, such as thermite and thermate produce heat in excess of 2500 degrees Fahrenheit -- more than enough to melt steel. So, one explanation for how the towers and WTC7 were brought down is Thermite cutter charges.
Now when that single guy gets married*, has 4 kids, and a parent becomes decrepit/disabled and decide to move in...?
In most places in the world, that single guy is already living at home with his parents, until he decides to get married, in which case... the wife moves in.
You don't really find many bachelor pads or group of roommates sharing a place.
Steel does not need to be 'melted' to be weakened well beyond safety margins, and beyond its required design strength. At moderately high temperatures it is weakened significantly.
True, steel does not need to be molten to be weakened, but you to need some event that melts steel to explain the molten steel found underneath the trade towers weeks after the collapse.
Important: note that I only linked to part one. I couldn't find any links to part two or three anywhere else on that page. Be sure to read parts two and three, any where you can find them.
Hey, thanks for no turning this into a flamefest :)
If you haven't run across this already, check out Dmitry Orlov's "Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century". He's a Russian national ( I think ) who lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union. He sees a lot of similarity between us and them ( He calls it the SU ( Soviet Union ) and the US ), and thinks that the US is in for a collapse. I think the psychological shock will be the biggest hurdle for the American people, but after that, he says the two big things are 1. have a small garden plot and 2. rely on your social networks. Ultimately, he ends on a very positive, hopeful note. Americans haven't been exposed to decades of hope-sapping communist work programs, and still believe in themselves, and believe they can 'make it' by hard work. I'm starting to believe that too!
The next few decades will be a fun, interesting time!
Sounds good until you realize that the average American household has $8,000 worth of credit card debt--not to mention mortgages, car loans, etc. Most Americans are one or two paychecks away from financial ruin. Americans in general are too spineless, and dependent on the "system", to ever revolt against it.
There's a quote from anthropology "People don't protest when their bellies are full".
Staggering debt is a great way to foment a revolution. So, what is so wonderful about this system that makes people so dependent on it? The fact that it makes you a serf? When people are in financial ruin, and have nothing else to lose, *that's* when they hit the streets. When they have no food. When they have nothing left to lose but their shackles of debt.
Think about it. What if I said "I can't take it any more. I can't afford food, car payments, credit card payments, and my mortgage. Starting tomorrow, I'm not paying my bills." What would happen? We'll the bank would foreclose on my house, the sheriff would kick me out of my house, and the tow truck would come and take my car, and my credit card would be declined everywhere I went.
Now, what would happen if *everybody* decided to do that? What if almost everybody did that *because they had no money*? There aren't enough sheriffs and tow-trucks to take away everyone's things. And all the businesses need people to keep buying their stuff! We would just stay in our homes, driving our cars when we could afford gas, and all of our credit card bills and credit ratings become as meaningless as a pile of monopoly money.
Fighting an insurgency on home soil, the US army would be subject to none of these disadvantages. Language and cultural barriers would be slim, and the problem of supply lines would be significantly ameliorated. Meanwhile, the insurgents would have to find safe havens, which would be significantly more difficult, given that the US is a larger country, and has a significantly larger interior region that would be relatively safe from border raids.
Yes, but at the same time, the US military fighting its own people would be a tough idea to swallow, both for civilians and the military. The whole society would split, right down the middle. There would be families split, communities split, states split. And each side would have sympathizers working from inside for the other team.
Yes, the American soldier asked to fight his own people would have the advantage of cultural literacy, but he wouldn't know who to trust. Perhaps his commanding officer would defect to the resistance. The Law and Order side would 'accidentally' kill civilians to teach towns and neighborhoods a lesson. The True Patroits would use guerrilla tactics to fight an imposing enemy, which will look a lot like terrorism to Ma and Pa in Kansas. The average citizen won't stand for an oppressive state, nor for terrorists who claim to defend our freedoms. Who would you side with?
It would be a right bloody mess all around.
What I was trying to convey is that the US armed forces aren't all going to buy into the idea that a significant portion of the American population has suddenly become terrorist.
Yes, in a few instances, some guard members have shot and killed unarmed civilians. The same things happens with police, and happened during the labor movements during the first part of the 20th century. However, the people won't stand for a government that has declared war on its citizens and uses the army to enforce it. Sure, there will be people who will be killed by the military. But, when power is used unjustly, the people see that, and rise up against it.
A myopic American perspective. Have you ever heard of South America? Time and time again, brutal dictators have been overthrown by poor Indians. When things get bad enough, the people rise up.
But won't the government just order the telecom companies to stop all of the "bad" communications? Good luck! How could they do that without shutting down *all* communications? You can't have a computer reading each one. You couldn't stop the messages without some government agent reviewing every single one. And if the government ever put such a kink in our system, to where people couldn't get to work and couldn't get food, *then* people would really start resisting. Everyone has their breaking point.
Remember, when you start talking about a big enough government program, "they" become "us". Not everyone in telecom would comply. Certain people would actually work from the inside to support the resistance! It's not like all resistors are on the front lines, taking up guns against the storm troopers. Most resistors have normal jobs in society, and they do a little something on the side to support the resistance. Maybe intel, maybe a safe house, maybe they divert a little food somewhere.
evolutions don't start with well-to-do and influential members of society.
They generally start with people who are on the fringes and are regarded by "authorities" as "up to no good"
That is true, but successful revolutions are successful because the masses jump on board. I don't believe that it's the fringe group who stirs up the masses; I believe it's the masses who are dissatisfied with the status quo, and after a time, see the fringe group as a reasonable alternative, and then decide to get on board with the program.
The masses choose who rules them. In good times, they stick with the current elite; in bad, they switch to the fringe.
Well, soldiers wouldn't fire on innocent civilians, but I reason they have no problem with "terrorists". People carying guns don't look innocent and if they pick up their guns to fight, expect a big intel spin on it. They will do it, I have no doubt about that.
The average American soldier probably doesn't have a problem considering an Iraqi civilian a 'terrorist', and therefore firing on him, but he might have a more difficult time buying the idea that a mass uprising of averge, everyday white Americans is "Al-Qaida in America".
Some things will be just too big to spin.
Oh, so I take it you never heard of Sarcasm...!
Why is it that everyone piles on this guy for saying "intensive purposes", yet when someone corrects the incorrect usage of "begs the question" English is all of a sudden a descriptive language with meanings that evolve?
I think it's because "begs the question" in modern English basically means "raises the question". If it wasn't a phrase translated from Latin that we inherited from the European University system, "begs the question" would mean today basically what people mistake it to mean.
OTOH, "all intensive purposes" has a different meaning from "all intents and purposes", and when people use it in a phrase manner, they often mistake its actual meaning.
It's like misusing the word "literally". "I was literally blown away" -- no, you weren't literally blown away. You're just saying literally to add emphasis to your story, not for it's actual meaning. When people say "all intensive purposes", they are saying that for its phrase value, not the actual meaning.
This is why I always thought that cloud computing based on servers would be disastrous. What if the server goes down? Well, here's a case in point. You lose everything.
I proposed an idea like a P2P backup. Say you have some 20 GB you want to back up. You make 20 GB available on your system, and fire up a P2P backup program. You partner with people who want to backup also, trade backup space, and voila! You have a distributed backup system. It's all encrypted, so you can't get into other people's stuff on your system, and vice-versa. Periodically, the app checks to make sure that all your backup partners are available. If not, it starts negotiating a backup with a new partner.
Of course, you don't want to lose your stuff to a single host going down, you would have a ratio of 3:1 or 4:1 to make sure that you have high availability.
Nonetheless, it demonstrates the failure of what the originator called the 'golden rule' -- "If everyone did X, would the result be good or bad?" That alone is not sufficient to make a good system of ethics.
What if you decided to go down to your local store and buy a soda? Not choosing any particular store or route, but just the store closest to you, whatever route is fastest, and buying something. Now, what if everyone did that? Chose to go to the closest store to them and buy something. There would be mass crowds, congestion, perhaps some tramplings, and stores would quickly run out of stock of popular items. What seems an innocent, amoral decision would quickly usher in a capitalist apocalypse if "everyone decided to do it". :)
It's easy to create a great game level and put that in a demo. It's harder to create a complete game with great levels all the way to the end. Sometimes, you buy a game and find out that the best level was the demo!
The problem with your attitude is that it fails the "golden rule" - would my behavior still be OK if everybody did what I do?
If everybody chose the same route to work that you did, wouldn't that create a major traffic jam, and likely congest the entire city for the morning? If so, isn't it therefore *wrong* for you to take that route to work?
Is this guy a real game developer? Has he been using computers since age 13? It always seemed to me that cracking the game was part of the territory -- almost as if cracking the protection mechanism was part of the game itself, the first puzzle. A friend would buy a game, and then everyone who wanted a copy would search BBSes for keys for the game, or ask an older brother if they knew a password. Did this guy grow up in a different world, or what? Or did he, as a young computer user, studiously make sure that all of his games were legitimately licensed?
People on the Autism spectrum, including people with Asperger's, are able to hear high-frequency sounds much better than the average person. I suspect there are a lot of such people on slashdot.
;)
I worked with a guy once at a computer recycling place. He clearly had Asperger's, from the way his 'stories' were a list of facts delivered in a monotone, to his encyclopedic knowledge of model numbers and release years, to his inability to explain himself to anybody in charge. He could tell if a monitor was good or not by plugging it in and just hearing the tone that the transformer ( or whatever electrical component it was ) made. No need to plug it in to a video source or anything.
BTW, I downloaded all the tones at Free Mosquito Ringtones, and I was able to hear all of them, from 8 khz to 22 khz. ( Only 18 year olds or younger are supposed to be able to hear the 20+ khz ). I'm turning 30 this month; I suppose next month I won't be able to hear all of them.
The companies might have a valid case about 'not being able to survive without each other' if they didn't make almost suicidally bad business decisions like paying Howard Stern 300 million dollars only to find out he can't bring in enough subscribers to even break even on his paycheck.
What are you talking about? The big talking point when the new broke that Sirius had signed Stern was that "Oh, Stern has to bring in one million subscribers for them to break even."
Sirius gained 1 million subscribers, going from 1 million to 2 million subscribers, in the year between the time Stern signed and the show started broadcasting. 2.5 years later, they are over 8 million subscribers.
So, to recap -- Sirius had 1.1 million subscribers on Dec. 31st, 2004. They are now over 8 million. Could they have done that without Stern? No. Without Stern, they would be out of business. Stern has paid off in spades. Well worth the investment.
First off, let me apologize for the fact that not everyone is born with knowledge of relational database features.
Now, for the sake of being generally well-informed, what other reasons would one want to use prepared statements? What was the reason(s) that prepared statements were introduced in the first place?
The article mentions that this device uses an electromagnetic pump to move the heat around. In my naivete, I suggested a similar thing, without a pump. I imagined a sort of metal lava-lamp, where at the base, next to the CPU, blobs of molten metal would rise up towards the top of the heat sink. As they rose, they would cool off ( with the help of the fan) , and then sink again to collect more heat. So, the outside of the heat sink would be copper or aluminum or something, and the inside would be some low-temperature metal like tin. Traditional fin architecture would assist in dispersing the heat.
For the lazy among us:
Field's metal, Rose's metal, Galinstan.
I know that the US EPA has had a less than stellar record under the Bush administration, but why are they so much more paranoid about mercury in CFLs than Environment Canada?