I make a legal and permitted link to some content. Then, the content at that URI is changed to something I am no longer legally allowed to link to. Am I committing a crime? I don't control what a URI points to. The owner of the server does.
8-9 month nightmare? Many explorers endured worse
on
Let's Not Go To Mars
·
· Score: 1
8-9 months nightmare? You've got to be kidding. Many explorers throughout history have endured worse.
Let's talk scurvy and rickets, no fresh water, bugs and rats, freezing cold and poor clothing. Compared to what many explorers have endured a trip to Mars in an amazingly well planned and funded mission would be a luxury cruise.
I imagine there were many people like Ed at the time of the likes of Columbus who though...ooh, that trip is so hard, we shouldn't go. No one can predict all of the outcomes that trips to Mars will bring, but we can say by looking at the past that exploration has yielded amazing outcomes.
"Your Amazon Echo is Bluetooth-enabled so you can stream popular audio services like Spotify and iTunes from a mobile device..."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/...
Email is an anathema. It sucks the life blood out of creativity, focus, and productivity. Unless you are in a job that is all about processing a series of tasks there is no way you could think email increases your productivity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
"In information theory, Shannon's source coding theorem (or noiseless coding theorem) establishes the limits to possible data compression, and the operational meaning of the Shannon entropy."
About five years ago I was doing a training session/presentation for IT staff at an Army base where I was told that the Army would never use anything other than Windows. I made the mistake of referring to Linux, Mac OSX and open source software during the presentation which caused some folks in the room to get upset with me. I remember a comment about hell freezing over first. I guess hell is a bit colder today.
Hatta said: But since p=mv anything with momentum does have mass. No. Logical fallacy. If p then q does not mean q then p. Ex: Boys have eyes. So, if a person has eyes is that personal necessarily a boy?
p = mv is true if there is mass that is moving. Without mass, given only that formula, there would be no momentum. But it is also true p = E/c. If an entity has energy it has momentum. The momentum can come from a mass with velocity or from energy. To say that an entity with momentum has mass because p = mv is not logical because the momentum may not have come from the entity having mass it may have come from the entity having energy. Photons have no mass but they do have energy.
On an advancedphysics.org board in 2005 Fernanda summed it up nicely:
"yeah, I'm done with this thread and will order any admin here to close all threads Michael opens regarding photons having mass, weight, size or whatever the heck wacky proposal he has."
Do photons have mass? Because the equations E=mc2, and E=hf, imply that m=hf/c2 . Is it so?
The Answer No, photons do not have mass, but they do have momentum. The proper, general equation to use is E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 So in the case of a photon, m=0 so E = pc or p = E/c. On the other hand, for a particle with mass m at rest (i.e., p = 0), you get back the famous E = mc2.
In the long run it would be better to kill TV altogether, use the spectrum to provide wireless Internet everywhere and then provide "TV" over the wireless Internet connections.
I suppose part of my problem is that I think of dimensionality in a cartesian sense. If I have a dimension curve back on itself (form a circle) I am conceptualizing that I have to go through another dimension to do it. So, if I have a line in one dimension I need to go through a second dimension to curve the line into a circle. Circles are two dimensional...and yet they are being used to describe a single dimension. I must somehow convince myself to think differently about what a dimension is I suppose.
>"Each time you travel a certain distance in the z-direction, you come back to where you started."
This implies, I think, that a dimension can be (is) in some sense bounded. And, in order for this bound to not generate a sharp end ( in the sense of end of the universe, edge of the world, etc.) the notion of coming back around to the original position is needed.
So, I am not sure if I am to accept that a dimension as a circle requires thinking about more than 1 dimension at a time to conceptualize a dimension or if I need to get my head to wrap around a model of a single dimension having curvature without the requirement for a second dimension.
This makes me think of the 1-D ant walking on what the ant thinks is a straight line when in fact when viewed from higher number of dimensions the ant could be walking on a circle, ellipse, mobius or any number of other forms. The thing is...from the perspective of the ant all the various traversals appear to happen in one dimension. But, that does not belie the "reality" from higher dimensions that the circle and the ellipse are two dimensional even if the ant doesn't know it.
I can see that if I had two dimensions and both were conceptualized as circular then a sphere would form whose surface would be a two dimensional "plane". A 2D creature could crawl all over that 2D plane with the only weirdness being that if it traveled far enough in any direction it would end up back where it started. The issue for me is... to conceptualize this 2D plane I need to have an added third dimension to see it. Is the third dimension that lets me see it "real" or does it only exist conceptually? I think it is interesting that I have to place my 2D curved world in a 3D cartesian space to "see" how it works.
No doubt, I need to take some courses in topology...
Can someone explain or point to a resource on how a dimension has scale? I've heard this before relative to String Theory...where additional dimensions are possibly very small. I just don't get how a dimension has a size/scale. If I go from 2 dimensions to 3 the added dimension is orthogonal to the first two. The axes of the new dimension (as with the first 2) go to infinities in either direction creating a volume that is unbounded. That is, with two dimensions I have an unbounded plane. If I add a third dimension and I get an unbounded volume.
So, in terms of my trying to conceptualize the idea of a dimension having scale, I take a two dimensional plane and add a third dimension and consider how this new dimension could have scale. I don't see how scale fits. I can't come up with a model that lets me conceptualize a notion of the added dimension itself being "smaller" than the other two...I see it as continuing to extend off to its respective infinities. All I can see is that the added dimension is orthogonal to the existing dimensions.
The only thing I can think of is the possibility that the new dimension's units (scale) are compressed relative to the other two. That is, I could have an object that is 2 meters long if placed on the x-axis and 2 meters long if placed on the y-axis but would only be 2cm long if placed along the z-axis (the axis of the third dimension). The third dimension would compress lengths relative to the other two dimensions.
I'd really like to know how to properly conceptualize or model the notion of a dimension having scale. I read about dimensions having scale often and just end up accepting it without understanding what it really means...and that bugs me.
330 miles is approximately 5 times the minimum altitude for entry into "space." The Kármán line is at an altitude of 62 miles (100 km) which is the boundary that defines where space begins. 75 miles is where atmospheric drag starts to have an effect. This means the craft traveled well into the Thermosphere. People who travel above 50 miles are called astronauts by NASA.
In one place it says, "...the Mars atmosphere is essentially a vacuum..." In another place it says, "The problem is, there are winds on Mars..." If it is essentially a vacuum, what is the composition of the wind?
Three words: radio frequency interference. It is hard to believe actual engineers are working on this. There is no way this scheme won't cause RFI. (Yes, I am an amateur radio operator.)
I agree with your analysis. You have thought through the issues well. The thing that I enjoyed about the paper, even with its flaws, is that there was an attempt to take a scientific/mathematical approach to an analysis of the issues rather than have the analysis (arguments) soley rely on emotion, personal experience, or gut feeling. Our politicians and decision makers often make their decisions and create policies using what "feels right" rather than basing it on something more substantial resulting from mathematical models or scientific analysis. Profiling feels effective, but is it effective? Alternatives can be created, modeled, analyzed and simulated. I'd prefer smart people using rational methods of analysis and peer review to help develop the procedures and policies that we all will live with over managers and policitians making decisions, based on apparent value, that have not withstood any real analysis or review.
In 2002 Samidh Chakrabarti and Aaron Strauss at MIT wrote the paper "Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System." The following quote from the paper's abstract relates to the current discussion:
In this paper, we show that since CAPS uses profiles to select passengers for increased scrutiny, it is actually less secure than systems that employ random searches. In particular, we present an algorithm called Carnival Booth that demonstrates how a terrorist cell can defeat the CAPS system.
The most effective form of resistance or revolt does not involve guns and it doesn't even involve violence. Simple do not do what is asked of you. If you are willing to fight back with weapons or with violence then you should be willing to not acquiesce by simply not doing what the government asks of you. Don't join the military, don't pay your taxes, don't get a universal ID, don't give your biometric information/don't give a DNA sample, etc. (Surely you can come up with a list on your own of things you can refuse to do that would have a profound effect on the government's ability to rule.) Are there consequences to these non-actions? Yes. But, so there are consequences to picking up a weapon. The government gets away with the things it does because its citizens acquiesce to its demands. Quietly revolting has the ability to cause as much change (maybe more) as violently revolting. But, it also gives you a moral high-ground to stand on. Your crime would be one of doing nothing. How many people can the govenment throw in jail before its power is rendered ineffective in the context of masses of people unwilling to do what it commands?
Slashdot Mirror
I make a legal and permitted link to some content. Then, the content at that URI is changed to something I am no longer legally allowed to link to. Am I committing a crime? I don't control what a URI points to. The owner of the server does.
8-9 months nightmare? You've got to be kidding. Many explorers throughout history have endured worse. Let's talk scurvy and rickets, no fresh water, bugs and rats, freezing cold and poor clothing. Compared to what many explorers have endured a trip to Mars in an amazingly well planned and funded mission would be a luxury cruise. I imagine there were many people like Ed at the time of the likes of Columbus who though...ooh, that trip is so hard, we shouldn't go. No one can predict all of the outcomes that trips to Mars will bring, but we can say by looking at the past that exploration has yielded amazing outcomes.
"Your Amazon Echo is Bluetooth-enabled so you can stream popular audio services like Spotify and iTunes from a mobile device..." http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/...
Email is an anathema. It sucks the life blood out of creativity, focus, and productivity. Unless you are in a job that is all about processing a series of tasks there is no way you could think email increases your productivity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... "In information theory, Shannon's source coding theorem (or noiseless coding theorem) establishes the limits to possible data compression, and the operational meaning of the Shannon entropy."
>...one asian. Lol. I guess you've never been to MIT.
I did miss that. Hell must be pretty solid by this point. It may explain global warming. The heat had to go somewhere.
About five years ago I was doing a training session/presentation for IT staff at an Army base where I was told that the Army would never use anything other than Windows. I made the mistake of referring to Linux, Mac OSX and open source software during the presentation which caused some folks in the room to get upset with me. I remember a comment about hell freezing over first. I guess hell is a bit colder today.
Hatta said: But since p=mv anything with momentum does have mass.
p hotoelectric2.html. cfm
No. Logical fallacy. If p then q does not mean q then p. Ex: Boys have eyes. So, if a person has eyes is that personal necessarily a boy?
p = mv is true if there is mass that is moving. Without mass, given only that formula, there would be no momentum. But it is also true p = E/c. If an entity has energy it has momentum. The momentum can come from a mass with velocity or from energy. To say that an entity with momentum has mass because p = mv is not logical because the momentum may not have come from the entity having mass it may have come from the entity having energy. Photons have no mass but they do have energy.
Wikipedia - momentum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum (scroll down to "Momentum of massless objects")
Wikipedia - photon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Planck's Constant and Energy of Photon - http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/
Relation of Photon Energy and Frequency - http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae99
Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Is it me, or has the quality of German physics research gone down a bit in the past 100 years?
On an advancedphysics.org board in 2005 Fernanda summed it up nicely:
"yeah, I'm done with this thread and will order any admin here to close all threads Michael opens regarding photons having mass, weight, size or whatever the heck wacky proposal he has."
Photons do not have mass.
r s/960731.html
From: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answe
The Question
(Submitted July 31, 1996)
Do photons have mass? Because the equations E=mc2, and E=hf, imply that m=hf/c2 . Is it so?
The Answer
No, photons do not have mass, but they do have momentum. The proper, general equation to use is E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 So in the case of a photon, m=0 so E = pc or p = E/c. On the other hand, for a particle with mass m at rest (i.e., p = 0), you get back the famous E = mc2.
In the long run it would be better to kill TV altogether, use the spectrum to provide wireless Internet everywhere and then provide "TV" over the wireless Internet connections.
Thanks for the explanation. It is helpful. If I may ask, where are you attending grad school?
I suppose part of my problem is that I think of dimensionality in a cartesian sense. If I have a dimension curve back on itself (form a circle) I am conceptualizing that I have to go through another dimension to do it. So, if I have a line in one dimension I need to go through a second dimension to curve the line into a circle. Circles are two dimensional...and yet they are being used to describe a single dimension. I must somehow convince myself to think differently about what a dimension is I suppose.
>"Each time you travel a certain distance in the z-direction, you come back to where you started."
This implies, I think, that a dimension can be (is) in some sense bounded. And, in order for this bound to not generate a sharp end ( in the sense of end of the universe, edge of the world, etc.) the notion of coming back around to the original position is needed.
So, I am not sure if I am to accept that a dimension as a circle requires thinking about more than 1 dimension at a time to conceptualize a dimension or if I need to get my head to wrap around a model of a single dimension having curvature without the requirement for a second dimension.
This makes me think of the 1-D ant walking on what the ant thinks is a straight line when in fact when viewed from higher number of dimensions the ant could be walking on a circle, ellipse, mobius or any number of other forms. The thing is...from the perspective of the ant all the various traversals appear to happen in one dimension. But, that does not belie the "reality" from higher dimensions that the circle and the ellipse are two dimensional even if the ant doesn't know it.
I can see that if I had two dimensions and both were conceptualized as circular then a sphere would form whose surface would be a two dimensional "plane". A 2D creature could crawl all over that 2D plane with the only weirdness being that if it traveled far enough in any direction it would end up back where it started. The issue for me is... to conceptualize this 2D plane I need to have an added third dimension to see it. Is the third dimension that lets me see it "real" or does it only exist conceptually? I think it is interesting that I have to place my 2D curved world in a 3D cartesian space to "see" how it works.
No doubt, I need to take some courses in topology...
Thanks for the responses.
Can someone explain or point to a resource on how a dimension has scale? I've heard this before relative to String Theory...where additional dimensions are possibly very small. I just don't get how a dimension has a size/scale. If I go from 2 dimensions to 3 the added dimension is orthogonal to the first two. The axes of the new dimension (as with the first 2) go to infinities in either direction creating a volume that is unbounded. That is, with two dimensions I have an unbounded plane. If I add a third dimension and I get an unbounded volume.
...and that bugs me.
So, in terms of my trying to conceptualize the idea of a dimension having scale, I take a two dimensional plane and add a third dimension and consider how this new dimension could have scale. I don't see how scale fits. I can't come up with a model that lets me conceptualize a notion of the added dimension itself being "smaller" than the other two...I see it as continuing to extend off to its respective infinities. All I can see is that the added dimension is orthogonal to the existing dimensions.
The only thing I can think of is the possibility that the new dimension's units (scale) are compressed relative to the other two. That is, I could have an object that is 2 meters long if placed on the x-axis and 2 meters long if placed on the y-axis but would only be 2cm long if placed along the z-axis (the axis of the third dimension). The third dimension would compress lengths relative to the other two dimensions.
I'd really like to know how to properly conceptualize or model the notion of a dimension having scale. I read about dimensions having scale often and just end up accepting it without understanding what it really means
330 miles is approximately 5 times the minimum altitude for entry into "space." The Kármán line is at an altitude of 62 miles (100 km) which is the boundary that defines where space begins. 75 miles is where atmospheric drag starts to have an effect. This means the craft traveled well into the Thermosphere. People who travel above 50 miles are called astronauts by NASA.
Weeg, thanks. I appreciate your explanation.
In one place it says, "...the Mars atmosphere is essentially a vacuum..." In another place it says, "The problem is, there are winds on Mars..." If it is essentially a vacuum, what is the composition of the wind?
Three words: radio frequency interference. It is hard to believe actual engineers are working on this. There is no way this scheme won't cause RFI. (Yes, I am an amateur radio operator.)
I agree with your analysis. You have thought through the issues well. The thing that I enjoyed about the paper, even with its flaws, is that there was an attempt to take a scientific/mathematical approach to an analysis of the issues rather than have the analysis (arguments) soley rely on emotion, personal experience, or gut feeling. Our politicians and decision makers often make their decisions and create policies using what "feels right" rather than basing it on something more substantial resulting from mathematical models or scientific analysis. Profiling feels effective, but is it effective? Alternatives can be created, modeled, analyzed and simulated. I'd prefer smart people using rational methods of analysis and peer review to help develop the procedures and policies that we all will live with over managers and policitians making decisions, based on apparent value, that have not withstood any real analysis or review.
The most effective form of resistance or revolt does not involve guns and it doesn't even involve violence. Simple do not do what is asked of you. If you are willing to fight back with weapons or with violence then you should be willing to not acquiesce by simply not doing what the government asks of you. Don't join the military, don't pay your taxes, don't get a universal ID, don't give your biometric information/don't give a DNA sample, etc. (Surely you can come up with a list on your own of things you can refuse to do that would have a profound effect on the government's ability to rule.) Are there consequences to these non-actions? Yes. But, so there are consequences to picking up a weapon. The government gets away with the things it does because its citizens acquiesce to its demands. Quietly revolting has the ability to cause as much change (maybe more) as violently revolting. But, it also gives you a moral high-ground to stand on. Your crime would be one of doing nothing. How many people can the govenment throw in jail before its power is rendered ineffective in the context of masses of people unwilling to do what it commands?
What? I am not the center of the Universe?
You posted on March 11 at 11:11PM. That is impressive.