Most Conspiracy Theories can be dismissed easily because there probably wasn't even a consipracy to begin with. But 911 *was* a conspiracy, so by defintion any explaination is a conspiracy theory.
Ha ha, you consipiracy nuts always make me laugh. If you'd open your eyes, you'd see the obvious: THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY! The events of 9/11 were all according to the secret plan of *one single person* who, acting completely independantly, crashed the four planes and fabricated the necessary evidence to cover-up his involvement.
You hear that, you rabid conspiracy freak?! JUST ONE GUY.
While I don't think this issue will (or should) hinder the adoption of VoIP, it does bring up a good point: Why can't you email the police? Or report an emergency online? Why not a whole RFC for an emergency distress protocol, using hard-crypto for authentication, that can run over any IP medium (mail, IM, HTTP, etc)?
For that matter, is there any reason to restrict it to the "standard" authorities? What about some sort of broadcast topology, so that someone can send their identity, location, and situation to any number of clients -- police agencies, fire stations, hospitals, Coast Guard -- who can watch for emergency traffic within their geographical region.
In short, we need some sort of standardized, generic method for issuing a distress call over IP. Morse code has had SOS for almost a century now, yet IP has no equivalent (so far as I know).
So, with a little mixer tweaking, I routed the voice synth output into Skype's input, called the poor schmuck, and had Microsoft Sam read him a message. (which was, if I recall, "We will be playing Starcraft at ten o'clock and such-and-such a place. Interested?")
The only problem I see here is Humans wanting to play other Humans, and getting out-classed by bots. So why not have a gaming site specifically for bots? Give it a simple CGI interface, with game state returned in XML, and your winnings depend on how well your bot plays. The competition would lead to increasingly intelligent and complex bots, and would encourage practical AI development.
For the VB kiddies there could even be a tic-tac-toe tournament...
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I.e., "We didn't think of everything. You still have right R, even if it's not listed".
Amendment X:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I.e, "Unless explicitely listed, the gov't doesn't have right R."
Stampede at the Patent Office
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Their seed ended up on his land through no fault of his, yet they claim they have a right to be paid license fees or to force him to spend his time and money removing corn derived from their migrating seed.
So by this logic, I could patent my own DNA, and if I happened to get a woman pregnant (i.e. my "seed" ended up on her "land"), not only would I not have to pay child support, but I could sue her for licensing fees on the "product" (or else require her to "remove" it, at her own expense, but let's not go there).
For that matter, grandchildren would then be considered "derivative works", giving an exponentially increasing revenue source.
Last summer, when I was wiring my newly acquired house with Cat-5, I had a very similar idea: in addition to the standard AC line, you could add even just a single Cat-5 strand with phone, ethernet, and DC power. You would then install a single common power supply in the wall, somewhere, hooked to both 4AC and DC lines. You could even have multiple power supplies, depending on your needs -- one per room, floor, building, etc. Aside from being much more efficient, this would also do away with "wall-warts" once and for all (yay!), replaced with small inline voltage regulators or DC-DC converters.
You could also make the outlets themselves more intelligent by hooking them to the ethernet (perhaps with little 4-port hubs in each outlet), and have the outlet itself be able to control voltage output (a la X10). For extra spiffiness, you could include a per-outlet digital ammetter to keep track of the power consumption of every device and appliance. With this in place, you could also have a house-wide UPS, such that when the power went out, the master controller would tell the outlets to shut off high-drain devices to conserve power for the important stuff.
Of course, all this might make the outlets a tiny bit more expensive...
You have understood nothing. The phenomenon is real and one of the strangest and most spooky things in physics. It shows that it it possible to get a particle (in this case a photon) to interfere with itself.
I believe that most of the confusion over quantum physics is due to the (mistaken) impression that a quantum particle is just a very small "thing", a physical object that you can point to and say "This is an photon. We'll call him 'Bob'".
The truth of the matter (as far as science can tell) is that particles do not exist in and of themselves, but only appear (or don't) when you observe them. When you shine a light, the light is not "emitting" photons, but rather is making ripples in the possibility field (the "proxy wave") that influences whether or not a photon will be observed at a particular point. Until a photon is observed, it doesn't exist.
The double-slit experiment isn't so spooky when you consider this wave aspect. Consider dropping two rocks of equal mass into a pool of water. Ripples will travel outward from the points of impact, as the energy passes through the water. Where the ripples intersect, the water level will be up to twice as high as the height of the individual ripples (constructive interference). At some points, the high point of one ripple will intersect the low point of the other, and they will cancel each other out (destructive interference). Essentially the same thing is happening with this experiment, except instead of two rocks you have two slits, and you measure the "height" of the light waves when they hit the wall.
As for the multiple-universe interpretation, it's no more or less valid than any other. All the various interpretations of quantum physics attempt to explain the unexplainable: what's really going on when we're not observing? Is there a "deep reality", independent of our observations? If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If we see a quantum particle, does that mean it was there when we weren't looking? Before we open the box, is the cat dead or alive?
The best answer known at this point is: we don't know, and we can't know, hence multiple competing theories (e.g. Copenhagen vs. Many-Worlds vs. Bohm, et al.). They're all just different ways of looking at the same uncertainty, and in that way, all equally valid. My current favorite theory is that quantum particles interact not in only in space, but also in time; the future influences the past, just the like the past influences the future.
"Besides, this is quantum mechanics. If you think it's not making sense, then you've nearly got it."
-- Steve VanDevender (in a.s.r)
O.k., I know it's April 1, but I could use the karma.;)
A few years back I ran across patent #5,159,703, which claims a method for subliminal audio. The jist of the method is to frequency- or amplitude-modulate the "message" with a carrier wave sufficiently higher than the range of hearing (for me, about 16KHz, YMMV). You then mix this with the music track.
CDDA supports up to 22KHz, and most speakers/headphones claim a frequency response up to 20KHz, so this gives about 4KHz of bandwidth for the message, which is roughly the same bandwidth as voice telephony.
I never got around to actually seeing if it actually worked (just because it's patented, doesn't mean it's valid), but you're welcome to try...
'Caching isn't that simple. Even with GPS, compass, map, cell-phone,.11g, night-vision, and towel (you do have your towel, right?), you can still spend hours bush-whacking, rooting around in stumps, peering under rocks, etc.
In the end, the gear will only get within a hundred feet or so. After that, it's a battle of wits between you and the bastard that hid it.
[Disclaimer: I know little about the mechanics or electronics of an automobile. Adjust technobabble accordingly.]
Three engineers -- a Mechanical, an Electrical and a Software engineer -- are riding in a car down a mountain. Near the bottom, the driver inexplicably looses control, and the car skids off the road into a ditch. The three uninjured techies extract themselves from the damaged vehicle and, after phoning for a tow truck, pass the time by trying to determine the cause of the accident.
After poking around under the hood for a few minutes, the Mechanical Engineer declares that a linkage to the brake pedal had broken, which caused the lack of control and thereby the accident.
The Electrical Engineer, however, points to corroded wires leading to one of the pumps, and argues that a power failure had caused the power stearing to go out. But the ME disagrees, insisting that the accident was caused by a mechanical problem.
Finally the two turn to the Software Engineer and ask his opinion. He looks at the car, looks at the other two, and looks at the road:
"I say we push it back up to the top and see if it happens again."
Slashdot Mirror
If that doesn't work, send up Richard Dean Andersen with some duct tape.
Wouldn't an F-302 be more useful than duct-tape?
Wait, which show are we referencing, again?
Oops, didn't mean to mod you down.
It's a little embarrassing, but honestly, I thought it would mod you "+1, Redundant".
Old and Busted: PCR
The New Hotness: Shotgun Sequencing
Ha ha, you consipiracy nuts always make me laugh. If you'd open your eyes, you'd see the obvious: THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY! The events of 9/11 were all according to the secret plan of *one single person* who, acting completely independantly, crashed the four planes and fabricated the necessary evidence to cover-up his involvement.
You hear that, you rabid conspiracy freak?! JUST ONE GUY.
His name is Fred.
With each other?! JPEG! JPEG!
For that matter, is there any reason to restrict it to the "standard" authorities? What about some sort of broadcast topology, so that someone can send their identity, location, and situation to any number of clients -- police agencies, fire stations, hospitals, Coast Guard -- who can watch for emergency traffic within their geographical region.
In short, we need some sort of standardized, generic method for issuing a distress call over IP. Morse code has had SOS for almost a century now, yet IP has no equivalent (so far as I know).
For the VB kiddies there could even be a tic-tac-toe tournament ...
I'm surprised no one's mentioned Reason magazine's blog Hit & Run.
Bwahahaha!
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I.e., "We didn't think of everything. You still have right R, even if it's not listed".
Amendment X:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I.e, "Unless explicitely listed, the gov't doesn't have right R."
For that matter, grandchildren would then be considered "derivative works", giving an exponentially increasing revenue source.
"They're not my kids, they're my IP portfolio."
Does that mean we need to rename Mandrake to "Freedom Linux"?
Last summer, when I was wiring my newly acquired house with Cat-5, I had a very similar idea: in addition to the standard AC line, you could add even just a single Cat-5 strand with phone, ethernet, and DC power. You would then install a single common power supply in the wall, somewhere, hooked to both 4AC and DC lines. You could even have multiple power supplies, depending on your needs -- one per room, floor, building, etc. Aside from being much more efficient, this would also do away with "wall-warts" once and for all (yay!), replaced with small inline voltage regulators or DC-DC converters.
...
You could also make the outlets themselves more intelligent by hooking them to the ethernet (perhaps with little 4-port hubs in each outlet), and have the outlet itself be able to control voltage output (a la X10). For extra spiffiness, you could include a per-outlet digital ammetter to keep track of the power consumption of every device and appliance. With this in place, you could also have a house-wide UPS, such that when the power went out, the master controller would tell the outlets to shut off high-drain devices to conserve power for the important stuff.
Of course, all this might make the outlets a tiny bit more expensive
I believe that most of the confusion over quantum physics is due to the (mistaken) impression that a quantum particle is just a very small "thing", a physical object that you can point to and say "This is an photon. We'll call him 'Bob'".
The truth of the matter (as far as science can tell) is that particles do not exist in and of themselves, but only appear (or don't) when you observe them. When you shine a light, the light is not "emitting" photons, but rather is making ripples in the possibility field (the "proxy wave") that influences whether or not a photon will be observed at a particular point. Until a photon is observed, it doesn't exist.
The double-slit experiment isn't so spooky when you consider this wave aspect. Consider dropping two rocks of equal mass into a pool of water. Ripples will travel outward from the points of impact, as the energy passes through the water. Where the ripples intersect, the water level will be up to twice as high as the height of the individual ripples (constructive interference). At some points, the high point of one ripple will intersect the low point of the other, and they will cancel each other out (destructive interference). Essentially the same thing is happening with this experiment, except instead of two rocks you have two slits, and you measure the "height" of the light waves when they hit the wall.
As for the multiple-universe interpretation, it's no more or less valid than any other. All the various interpretations of quantum physics attempt to explain the unexplainable: what's really going on when we're not observing? Is there a "deep reality", independent of our observations? If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If we see a quantum particle, does that mean it was there when we weren't looking? Before we open the box, is the cat dead or alive?
The best answer known at this point is: we don't know, and we can't know, hence multiple competing theories (e.g. Copenhagen vs. Many-Worlds vs. Bohm, et al.). They're all just different ways of looking at the same uncertainty, and in that way, all equally valid. My current favorite theory is that quantum particles interact not in only in space, but also in time; the future influences the past, just the like the past influences the future.
A few years back I ran across patent #5,159,703, which claims a method for subliminal audio. The jist of the method is to frequency- or amplitude-modulate the "message" with a carrier wave sufficiently higher than the range of hearing (for me, about 16KHz, YMMV). You then mix this with the music track.
CDDA supports up to 22KHz, and most speakers/headphones claim a frequency response up to 20KHz, so this gives about 4KHz of bandwidth for the message, which is roughly the same bandwidth as voice telephony.
I never got around to actually seeing if it actually worked (just because it's patented, doesn't mean it's valid), but you're welcome to try ...
'Caching isn't that simple. Even with GPS, compass, map, cell-phone, .11g, night-vision, and towel (you do have your towel, right?), you can still spend hours bush-whacking, rooting around in stumps, peering under rocks, etc.
In the end, the gear will only get within a hundred feet or so. After that, it's a battle of wits between you and the bastard that hid it.
[Disclaimer: I know little about the mechanics or electronics of an automobile. Adjust technobabble accordingly.]
Three engineers -- a Mechanical, an Electrical and a Software engineer -- are riding in a car down a mountain. Near the bottom, the driver inexplicably looses control, and the car skids off the road into a ditch. The three uninjured techies extract themselves from the damaged vehicle and, after phoning for a tow truck, pass the time by trying to determine the cause of the accident.
After poking around under the hood for a few minutes, the Mechanical Engineer declares that a linkage to the brake pedal had broken, which caused the lack of control and thereby the accident.
The Electrical Engineer, however, points to corroded wires leading to one of the pumps, and argues that a power failure had caused the power stearing to go out. But the ME disagrees, insisting that the accident was caused by a mechanical problem.
Finally the two turn to the Software Engineer and ask his opinion. He looks at the car, looks at the other two, and looks at the road:
"I say we push it back up to the top and see if it happens again."