"but is it really necessary to endanger Earth every f-ing time something in the universe blows up?"
Yeah, its just like the wild stories about how just because a couple of buildings in New York get blown up, suddenly all of civilisation is in danger...
"And when we send them, I'd rather they get real training, whose results are understood."
It can be really easy to totally screw someone up with poorly understood training.
I remember reading about some US special forces outfit (Rangers IIRC?) who as part of their training would undergo regular and extended immersion in cold water. The theory being that they were getting hardened against hypothermia.
If I recall correctly, it actually had completely the opposite effect so they wound up with a couple of generations of special forces soldiers who were extremely vulnerable to hypothermia. Not good.
What amazes me is that Islam *specifically* forbids the use of fire as a weapon and specifically forbids the harming of non-combatants yet here we are...
What was that other bit again oh yeah;
'Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you. Drive them out of the places where they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they stop, let there be no more war, for God never loves the starter of wars.'
I know that ethanol produced by biological processes is always of one isomer only, whereas ethanol produced by industrial processes (ie from ethane gas) is equal proportions of both left- and right-isomers.
Any chance that methane isomers might be a way to check? Or does methane come only in one version?
I just finished watching season 5 of B5 and if JMS takes over Trek well all I can say is, maybe that way Trek will die in its sleep of old age just like B5 did.
Those last 3 episodes were like a trip to an old folks home to watch grandma die drooling.
Justification depends on the testosterone levels...
If testosterone levels are high, then weapons are desirable hence justifying the costs.
Otherwise nuclear power is desirable by itself as it provides a long-term reliable source of electricity.
In a democracy this is barely justifiable as the 'long term' of a democracy just isn't long enough to realise the benefits.
Hence, democracies see nuclear power the in way you express it.
Re:Info on what exactly SHA-1 is ...
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
So what? All this data I've got which I 'encrypted' with SHA-1 is just worthless noise now? Damn I knew I should have checked it before deleting the originals...
Besides you obviously believe anything they tell you; I couldn't say anything on here that would undo the fantastic mind-wipe job they did on you can I?
Re:Info on what exactly SHA-1 is ...
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
I just assume that any encryption system which it is legal to export from the USA is so permitted because the NSA know they can crack it.
If its legally exportable, its crackable.
But on the other hand, anything that they *say* its illegal to export could just be a double blind.
The real answer is to not encrypt anything, just use indecipherable jargon talk... oh wait, this is IT...
I think that underneath it all is the problem of long-term management.
People who are agin' nucular energy typically distrust the ability of governments or corporation to sucessfuly manage anything over a long term period eg decades or centuries.
This problem is exacerpated in the democratic world because more people just *know* that 10 years down the track (say) everyone in power is going to have different priorities and different plans and that the effort to change things to suit the latest corporate mission statement or political slogans will screw things up.
Therefore, ok perhaps a little subconsciously, people protest against nuclear power not because the technology is inherently unsafe but because the ability of modern society to manage long term projects end-to-end is *dismal*.
Truly *DISMAL*
Ergo nuclear technology, in the context of modern society, is dangerous.
I thought that the only time that 'prior art' matters with respect to patents is when someone spends $40,000 (or some other sky-high figure) to lodge a request for a review at the patent office?
Other than that, prior art seems pretty useless as a way to stop something being patented in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
"but is it really necessary to endanger Earth every f-ing time something in the universe blows up?"
Yeah, its just like the wild stories about how just because a couple of buildings in New York get blown up, suddenly all of civilisation is in danger...
"And when we send them, I'd rather they get real training, whose results are understood."
It can be really easy to totally screw someone up with poorly understood training.
I remember reading about some US special forces outfit (Rangers IIRC?) who as part of their training would undergo regular and extended immersion in cold water. The theory being that they were getting hardened against hypothermia.
If I recall correctly, it actually had completely the opposite effect so they wound up with a couple of generations of special forces soldiers who were extremely vulnerable to hypothermia. Not good.
Yeah, I mean if SHA-256 is SHA in 256 bits and SHA-512 is SHA in 512 bits, surely even an idiot would have seen an upcoming hole in SHA-1
"It was designed for the 1980s, and Sun's documentation is very clear about this."
So was NFS. What does Suns docco have to say about that?
I still see fresh Solaris installs complete with internet-facing NFS. And its so wonderfully secure.
And NFS is so secure.
I mean its not as if anyone else on the network can change their UID and access anyone elses files via NFS, right?
"but you get the added bonus of having to have twice as many servers to implement it."
;)
So... that means its good for the economy then. This *is* capitalism, isn't it?
As Master Shake said "If I woke up like that, I'd move toward the nearest living thing... and kill it".
So... the main reason for searching for large primes is to develop better techniques for... searching for large primes?
And only terrorists *have* nuclear bombs.
I realised this at the age of 16 growing up in London, England, under the 'nuclear umbrella'.
The cold war was a war of terror.
Absolutely.
The very existance of nation states is a threat to humanity for they divide us into warring, squabbling, bickering groups.
There is no such thing as a 'race'; there are only great extended families; racial conflicts are really family feuds.
There is no such thing as religion; its all in the mind.
There is *only* humanity.
You are all human beings; you are not Americans or Iraqis or Moslems or Christians or Semite or Caucasian.
You are human beings dammit!
Your lives have value beyond the artificial bollocks called 'race' 'nation' and 'religion'
What amazes me is that Islam *specifically* forbids the use of fire as a weapon and specifically forbids the harming of non-combatants yet here we are...
What was that other bit again oh yeah;
'Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you. Drive them out of the places where they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they stop, let there be no more war, for God never loves the starter of wars.'
"There are none. Join the nuclear club, and get yourself a seat at the table with the other big boys."
With the other *terrorists*
Anyone who threatens use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons is -- virtually by definition -- a terrorist.
The cold war was a war of terror.
Hey thats a brilliant idea!
And it might even bring the temperate zone down to North Africa too, added bonus.
The Europeans would have to beg the North Africans for agricultural land. How fitting.
Sort of like terraforming planet Earth...
Not *the* Dudley Manlove???
I dunno but I just can't see giant glass worms producing methane... spice, yes, methane, no...
I was wondering if there might be a way to test.
I know that ethanol produced by biological processes is always of one isomer only, whereas ethanol produced by industrial processes (ie from ethane gas) is equal proportions of both left- and right-isomers.
Any chance that methane isomers might be a way to check? Or does methane come only in one version?
I just finished watching season 5 of B5 and if JMS takes over Trek well all I can say is, maybe that way Trek will die in its sleep of old age just like B5 did.
Those last 3 episodes were like a trip to an old folks home to watch grandma die drooling.
Justification depends on the testosterone levels...
If testosterone levels are high, then weapons are desirable hence justifying the costs.
Otherwise nuclear power is desirable by itself as it provides a long-term reliable source of electricity.
In a democracy this is barely justifiable as the 'long term' of a democracy just isn't long enough to realise the benefits.
Hence, democracies see nuclear power the in way you express it.
So what? All this data I've got which I 'encrypted' with SHA-1 is just worthless noise now? Damn I knew I should have checked it before deleting the originals...
"Where've you been?"
I've been Humorous.
Besides you obviously believe anything they tell you; I couldn't say anything on here that would undo the fantastic mind-wipe job they did on you can I?
I just assume that any encryption system which it is legal to export from the USA is so permitted because the NSA know they can crack it.
If its legally exportable, its crackable.
But on the other hand, anything that they *say* its illegal to export could just be a double blind.
The real answer is to not encrypt anything, just use indecipherable jargon talk... oh wait, this is IT...
Nucular power is not safe because of the long-term management problems.
Thats what I was saying, nothing about proliferation, nothing about weaponisation.
Its a management problem endemic in democratic/capitalist societies.
I think that underneath it all is the problem of long-term management.
People who are agin' nucular energy typically distrust the ability of governments or corporation to sucessfuly manage anything over a long term period eg decades or centuries.
This problem is exacerpated in the democratic world because more people just *know* that 10 years down the track (say) everyone in power is going to have different priorities and different plans and that the effort to change things to suit the latest corporate mission statement or political slogans will screw things up.
Therefore, ok perhaps a little subconsciously, people protest against nuclear power not because the technology is inherently unsafe but because the ability of modern society to manage long term projects end-to-end is *dismal*.
Truly *DISMAL*
Ergo nuclear technology, in the context of modern society, is dangerous.
Might be for the best...
Didn't someone once say 'The human race will only know peace when there is just one human left'?
I thought that the only time that 'prior art' matters with respect to patents is when someone spends $40,000 (or some other sky-high figure) to lodge a request for a review at the patent office?
Other than that, prior art seems pretty useless as a way to stop something being patented in the first place.