Positrons all have the same (positive) charge so containing them is hard because they repulse eachother. An anti-atom (ie, positrons oribiting around anti-protons) would be neutral and could even be formed into a solid. This solid could then be suspended. No. How do you suspend the 'solid'? With anti gravity?!
At least, positrons can be contained using EM fields...
The problem is that 'those religous people'(*) will use logic in everyday cases (and even defend it!) but will stop to use it if it gets even a little more complex.
He did just ask a question, no need for such a harsh answer. I think the others did just say very well what the mods should do...:-)
AND, to be nitpicking: [...] Fusing 2 lighte cores will yield energy because the product is closer to iron, [...]
What is 'closer' here? Closer in binding energy or atomic number. The latter would be the wrong answer, the former is right.
For the grandparent: If you want to know what this is all about, google for "binding curve energy". The first result I get explains it very well and easily understandable.
You're missing the point. Even if ITER works, we're still many decades away from commercial fusion power. More improvement would result from spending that money in optimizing what we already have.
I'm sure that this happens ALOT faster if the oil price rises steeply.
Give us humans a rational cause (global warming etc.) and we'll ignore it. Give us a 'direct' feeling (evil enemy in (cold) war, money for gasoline), and we'll react promptly.
Still, even if you have no control of the computer, at some point the music has to be converted to an analog electric signal to be sent to the speakers. All you need to do is to re-digitize this data.
Imagine a world in which all ADCs and similar devices look for watermarks in the analog stream and mute the output if there is such a watermark.
Sure, maybe you have an old-style ADC or sound card lying around that can record the tunes. But you would have to feed that into your brand-new TCPA-enabled computer to make it useful. Or your TCPA-enabled car radio. And now, the data stream is simply controlled by 'trusted' software in the digital domain and rejected. The device may even phone home and you would not be able to notice since the IP protocol runs in 'safe TCPA' mode.
Gets good points in my book, but it would be infinately cooler with a pump to circulate the water and then you could just add more ice from your freezer to get it cooler again. But the freezer is usally inside the house/dormitory. And it produces at least as much heat as you get from warming up the ice water to the point it was before it was put into the freezer.
I have to support your argument, as real networks releases the player and all major functionality as FOSS (maybe to drag the 'free' programmers into doing free support and coding for it?) but still keeps the core, i.e. codecs closed.
A company with a strong pro-DRM mission gets the support of many FOSS people - simply by doing clever marketing. This is sad.
While it's correct to say that a belief in aliens is not absolutely falsifiable, it is incorrect to call it a religion. It can be a part of a religion's doctrine, but it is also possible for it to be part of a secular belief system. The real question is whether the appearance of new evidence could possibly change your mind.
I would say that is indeed very simple to make a science out of 'SETI religion'. Instead of asking the question 'are we alone?' (which can only be shown with successfull contact to another civilization), state it as 'how low is (or can you make) the upper bound on 'intelligently'(*) habitated planets?'.
"From a random(**) sample of 1000 stars, none is inhabitated." gives a statistical estimate on the upper-bound on the number of civilizations in the world.
Of course, the hope that someday, someone will hear an alien speaking into one of the receivers is non-scientific and one may regard that as a 'SETI religion'.
But if one hopes instead that one's scientific research will lead to progress which will somehow solve some of the world's problems, that too is some form of a 'religion'.
Hey, after all, the personal motivation why someone does research in a particular scientific field is always somewhat irrational and filled with belief and wishes. I.e. science my be scientific, but the incentive to do it won't ever be!
---- (*)- you have to define intelligence, that alone gives 100s of problems, but that's not the point here... (**) - problematic to achieve as our view of the world is only good in a little sphere around our sun.
And.. I want to say *ANY 'employee' making over a few mill a year, but really it is just MOST people being paid such is being paid as a form of recognition, not because the person being paid cares about the money itself.
Don't care about the money? Well, ok, a 1EUR/year symbolic salary should be sufficient then!
After all, if they're in the company because they literally *love it*, they should love it if that company has ~ 1e7EUR more to invest, too!
And a CEO with vision can be worth infinitely more than 500 programmers -- because a company without a PURPOSE goes bankrupt and there are no more programmers (div by zero;~) ).
That said, writing a contract that lets a CEO commit murder and still get paid is pretty damned stupid.
That is why you probably get alot more respect from 'engineer people' if the CEOs are paid performance-related. For example managers who own a significant fraction of the stock. Because a.) it is possible to lose money and b.) there is a need for longer-tem survival of the company.
[...] so doesnt it seem counterproductive to remove what is essentially this mediums only revenue source?
Doesn't it seem counterproductive to give up fundamental privacy and freedom of speech rights, as well as fair use just to give artists and some corporations the 'freedom' to maximize their profits.
Hence, 240ms round trip. Back and forth, you to your provider. Another 240ms to get a responce.
No. The internet is not connection based. You don't have a "connection" (in the IP layer, there are no connections!) with your provider, you only exchange packets. Please do not think of the internet as a chain of connections. There are physical connections, sure, but 'Network link' is the proper naming here...
The provider simply dispatches the packet into another channel and if that and all other hops are fiber-linked, you get 240ms+ x ms where x is what you'd get if you do a ping to the destination host from the satellite provider you use.
Of course, if your satellite link has a very ugly setup, it may do handshake on link level for every packet transmitted/receive. For example if you have some sort of "phone link" over which you do a ppp connection. In this case, you would be right. But I'd try hard to find another ISP then...:-)
#3 is interesting. I know TPM is associated with 'evil-DRM-Trusted-computing-stuff', but I use it as an unbreakable store of my sensitive keys. If what the inventors say is true (I work with some of them), you'd have to be a stronly motivate government to stand a chance of getting stuff off the TPM, so implicitly, off this hard disk.
If your work with the inventors, you should know one thing. It is not trusted computing that is seen as inherently unsafe or "bad". That is the (IMHO VERY harmful) anti-tcpa propaganda which dumbs things down too much - which leads to people like you asking "so what?"
Yes, I would be very happy to own a trusted computing device, if and only if I have access to ALL keys and there is nothing hidden to me as the user (of course, with authorization by a passwort/master-key). But that's the point and the danger. Trusted computing with "not-your-own-keys", areas on your computer controlled by someone else, makes the most evil forms of DRM, goverment control etc. possible!
The guy was refering to the oft-quoted observation that Linus is a "benevolent dictator", or rather than Linux's development model is one of benevolent dictatorship. It wasn't an insult aimed at Torvalds. And still, by taken this out of context and removing the first part, IMHO it is meant to have this or a similar effect. Hidden, very biased rhetorics!
Slashdot Mirror
Positrons all have the same (positive) charge so containing them is hard because they repulse eachother. An anti-atom (ie, positrons oribiting around anti-protons) would be neutral and could even be formed into a solid. This solid could then be suspended.
No. How do you suspend the 'solid'? With anti gravity?!
At least, positrons can be contained using EM fields...
The problem is that 'those religous people'(*) will use logic in everyday cases (and even defend it!) but will stop to use it if it gets even a little more complex.
----
(*)- doesn't include all religous people.
The questions asked seem to be heavily biased towards the biology side.
He did just ask a question, no need for such a harsh answer. I think the others did just say very well what the mods should do... :-)
AND, to be nitpicking:
[...] Fusing 2 lighte cores will yield energy because the product is closer to iron, [...]
What is 'closer' here? Closer in binding energy or atomic number. The latter would be the wrong answer, the former is right.
For the grandparent: If you want to know what this is all about, google for "binding curve energy". The first result I get explains it very well and easily understandable.
You're missing the point. Even if ITER works, we're still many decades away from commercial fusion power. More improvement would result from spending that money in optimizing what we already have.
I'm sure that this happens ALOT faster if the oil price rises steeply.
Give us humans a rational cause (global warming etc.) and we'll ignore it.
Give us a 'direct' feeling (evil enemy in (cold) war, money for gasoline), and we'll react promptly.
Still, even if you have no control of the computer, at some point the music has to be converted to an analog electric signal to be sent to the speakers. All you need to do is to re-digitize this data.
Imagine a world in which all ADCs and similar devices look for watermarks in the analog stream and mute the output if there is such a watermark.
Sure, maybe you have an old-style ADC or sound card lying around that can record the tunes. But you would have to feed that into your brand-new TCPA-enabled computer to make it useful. Or your TCPA-enabled car radio. And now, the data stream is simply controlled by 'trusted' software in the digital domain and rejected. The device may even phone home and you would not be able to notice since the IP protocol runs in 'safe TCPA' mode.
I doubt it. 'Noise' is a very natural phenomenon.
Gets good points in my book, but it would be infinately cooler with a pump to circulate the water and then you could just add more ice from your freezer to get it cooler again.
But the freezer is usally inside the house/dormitory. And it produces at least as much heat as you get from warming up the ice water to the point it was before it was put into the freezer.
I have to support your argument, as real networks releases the player and all major functionality as FOSS (maybe to drag the 'free' programmers into doing free support and coding for it?) but still keeps the core, i.e. codecs closed.
A company with a strong pro-DRM mission gets the support of many FOSS people - simply by doing clever marketing. This is sad.
Now we have a meta study about science saying that science doesn't not work as it should - and this study is now unscientific??
This provokes headaches, I think...
Therefore I have modified my Palm m105 to use this charging circuit!
It works and I have it running on a pair of NiMH cells for now about half a year without any data loss.
While it's correct to say that a belief in aliens is not absolutely falsifiable, it is incorrect to call it a religion. It can be a part of a religion's doctrine, but it is also possible for it to be part of a secular belief system. The real question is whether the appearance of new evidence could possibly change your mind.
I would say that is indeed very simple to make a science out of 'SETI religion'. Instead of asking the question 'are we alone?' (which can only be shown with successfull contact to another civilization), state it as 'how low is (or can you make) the upper bound on 'intelligently'(*) habitated planets?'.
"From a random(**) sample of 1000 stars, none is inhabitated." gives a statistical estimate on the upper-bound on the number of civilizations in the world.
Of course, the hope that someday, someone will hear an alien speaking into one of the receivers is non-scientific and one may regard that as a 'SETI religion'.
But if one hopes instead that one's scientific research will lead to progress which will somehow
solve some of the world's problems, that too is some form of a 'religion'.
Hey, after all, the personal motivation why someone does research in a particular scientific field is always somewhat irrational and filled with belief and wishes.
I.e. science my be scientific, but the incentive to do it won't ever be!
----
(*)- you have to define intelligence, that alone gives 100s of problems, but that's not the point here...
(**) - problematic to achieve as our view of the world is only good in a little sphere around our sun.
And.. I want to say *ANY 'employee' making over a few mill a year, but really it is just MOST people being paid such is being paid as a form of recognition, not because the person being paid cares about the money itself.
;~) ).
Don't care about the money? Well, ok, a 1EUR/year symbolic salary should be sufficient then!
After all, if they're in the company because they literally *love it*, they should love it if that company has ~ 1e7EUR more to invest, too!
And a CEO with vision can be worth infinitely more than 500 programmers -- because a company without a PURPOSE goes bankrupt and there are no more programmers (div by zero
That said, writing a contract that lets a CEO commit murder and still get paid is pretty damned stupid.
That is why you probably get alot more respect from 'engineer people' if the CEOs are paid performance-related. For example managers who own a significant fraction of the stock. Because
a.) it is possible to lose money and
b.) there is a need for longer-tem survival of the company.
It's a pity that the images are only black/white!
... but he has a voice on Forbes.com. And a "respected" magazine is the only important thing for
:-(
a.) PHBs
b.) VCs
c.) Politicians
Not that there is no open source non-commodity software :-)
Brilliant, really! :-)
[...] so doesnt it seem counterproductive to remove what is essentially this mediums only revenue source?
Doesn't it seem counterproductive to give up fundamental privacy and freedom of speech rights, as well as fair use just to give artists and some corporations the 'freedom' to maximize their profits.
What is wrong with doing a svn cp to tag a version?
It works, it is nice, there is less to learn and it is as powerful as a CVS tag.
No I dont think so, it was something like DSL 512kBit downlink and satellite 10Mbit.
You're damn right, somehow I had the ISP planted at the satellites location... oops :-)
Well, maybe I can excuse myself with having seen a satellite 280ms ping, but somehow I had ignored the DSL uplink...
Hence, 240ms round trip. Back and forth, you to your provider. Another 240ms to get a responce.
:-)
No. The internet is not connection based. You don't have a "connection" (in the IP layer, there are no connections!) with your provider, you only exchange packets.
Please do not think of the internet as a chain of connections. There are physical connections, sure, but 'Network link' is the proper naming here...
The provider simply dispatches the packet into another channel and if that and all other hops are fiber-linked, you get 240ms+ x ms where x is what you'd get if you do a ping to the destination host from the satellite provider you use.
Of course, if your satellite link has a very ugly setup, it may do handshake on link level for every packet transmitted/receive. For example if you have some sort of "phone link" over which you do a ppp connection.
In this case, you would be right. But I'd try hard to find another ISP then...
#3 is interesting. I know TPM is associated with 'evil-DRM-Trusted-computing-stuff', but I use it as an unbreakable store of my sensitive keys. If what the inventors say is true (I work with some of them), you'd have to be a stronly motivate government to stand a chance of getting stuff off the TPM, so implicitly, off this hard disk.
If your work with the inventors, you should know one thing. It is not trusted computing that is seen as inherently unsafe or "bad". That is the (IMHO VERY harmful) anti-tcpa propaganda which dumbs things down too much - which leads to people like you asking "so what?"
Yes, I would be very happy to own a trusted computing device, if and only if I have access to ALL keys and there is nothing hidden to me as the user (of course, with authorization by a passwort/master-key).
But that's the point and the danger. Trusted computing with "not-your-own-keys", areas on your computer controlled by someone else, makes the most evil forms of DRM, goverment control etc. possible!
Ohh, but see, yours is. Look at the text in brackets right to your post's title! ;-P
The guy was refering to the oft-quoted observation that Linus is a "benevolent dictator", or rather than Linux's development model is one of benevolent dictatorship. It wasn't an insult aimed at Torvalds.
And still, by taken this out of context and removing the first part, IMHO it is meant to have this or a similar effect. Hidden, very biased rhetorics!