I'm sure the thought of your gun will have the government's paramilitary SWAT team quaking in their boots as they simultaneously break down your door and throw a flashbang into your bedroom.
Like when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1955 at the behest of big oil?
Or when Reagan sold weapons to Iran to finance South American death squads?
Or when Rummy was over in Iraq at the same time, shaking hands with Saddam?
And let's not get started about the things it does for the MAFIAA...
The US is a lot better than previous empires in history (look up what the Romans did to Carthage if you doubt), but you're utterly delusional if you think the US's history for the last 60 years has been one of anything but empire, enforced largely by violence or the threat of violence.
Next universe over, I suppose, it's safe to assume someone's bitching about universities gouging for tuition and then not spending a comparative trifle to prevent their names from being porn urls?
It's a quite simple calculus... The rates of bomb damage fall off as between r^2 (thermal effects) and r^3 (deposition of blast energy throughout the volume, etc). That's why you consider the killing radius of a concussion grenade vs a MOAB, then consider the astronomical amount of effort needed to build a single MOAB, and decide "I'd be better off wrapping a thousand concussion grenades in shrapnel and marketing them as 'frag grenades." The enormous increase in energy release per mass of nuclear explosives changes the prefactors, but the scaling behavior remains the same. Why go to the effort of building Tsar Bomba (a device so massive it could never actually be delivered to an enemy) to destroy everything in a 10 mile radius, when 3 bombs with 1/10 the yield (that are entirely practical to build and deliver over intercontinental distances) will probably do even more damage, when dropped in a triangle shape on that 20 mile wide disk?
IRL, 10+ megaton explosives were built when missile guidance systems could promise to put the bomb down within a few miles of the Soviet silo, and to break a hardened bunker/silo from miles out meant many megatons. Today they could choose which letter on the silo cover to drop it on, so there's no call for giant warheads.
Yeah, I saw in google news that they called that off. Something about the Zetas being a bunch of vicious psychopaths who promised to murder 10 innocent people for every one of them exposed.
Can we please either send in the military or end the idiotic drug prohibition, which has brought about a massive wave of organized crime (just like last time)?
I'm going to assume this is a joke, since no one would be stupid enough to actually conflate Bush's trillion-dollar, decade-long, 4000-soldiers-dead, 100000-civilians-dead, all-based-on-lies catastro-phuck with Obama spending less than 1/1000 that much to do exactly what he said he wanted - help a popular movement topple an insane (not "merely" stalinesque evil, but full-on dementia insane) dictator - with zero American casualties, in 6 months.
Between his enthusiastic expansion of illegal spying, his desire to expand the most spectacularly and massively failed policy of all time (the drug prohibition) and his otherwise lukewarm-at-best support for socially liberal policies, there's plenty shit he actually does wrong to whine about. There's no need to make shit up, sonny.
I never claimed that humans were the only driving term, or that climate change would drive us to extinction. It would take one hell of a disaster to do that.
I will most certainly claim that we and our activities are now acting as a dangerously strong and high-frequency driving term on the climate. And that along with this comes the potential that we can observe where the climate's state has been and where it's wandering to, of its own dalliance and external influences including us. And that as a part of industrialization, we may be able to nudge it into following a course more favorable for ourselves (e.g. one where the US midwest remains a breadbasket, and where Europe is habitable, and billions are displaced by coastal flooding). Above all else, I claim that we shouldn't sit around passively waiting for the bad things to happen.
Of course, we lack the raw power output to directly drive the climate so we have to act on secular rather than dynamic timescales. Given the evidence that the climate is moving in a bad direction, accelerated by us, it would be a good idea to figure shit out and get a move on with nudging in the right direction now. And before anyone asks, right means "the climate to which modern society is accustomed and altogether dependent on." Will it work? Maybe. Is it something we ought to try, in the name of saving billions from suffering and death? Oh hell yes.
It doesn't matter a bit. Until the consequences reach such catastrophic, region-depopulating proportions that the changes occurring can't possibly be ignored the denalism will continue to be sponsored (because that's convenient for certain big businesses in the short term, and they're too stupid to see they're shooting themselves in the face in the medium and long term).
By then it'll almost certainly be too late to do anything, either to prepare or attempt to moderate the changes. But I have no doubt that when that time comes, the denalists will pretend they are innocent and will continue to defend the handful of corporate interests that manipulated them. Remember how long the tobacco-sponsored lies about how smoking doesn't cause cancer kept up?
There are getting towards 10^23 molecules of gas in this two liter bottle, each too complex for its equation of motion to be solved alone. Any physicist who claims his model to be taking into account atomic behavior is talking complete bullshit, and anybody claiming their favorite equation of state makes accurate predictions is counting the hits and forgetting the misses.
Or, statistical predictions don't require knowing the exact behavior of each agent, and expectation values can take you a long way.
Somewhere among my first executive orders would be "Anyone who believes this shall be forced to sit through math classes narrated by the most boring person on earth until they can write out and explain in detail why it is wrong, and be pimp-slapped by MC Hawking every time they fail."
Eugenics might sound like a good idea on paper... until you come to the realization that no one who believes they have a right to dictate who else lives, dies and gets born must ever be allowed to have such a power.
Could it be that the reason no events have been observed is that none existed in the first place, and the threat of terrorism is massively overblown by "security" agencies seeking to motivate/necessitate their own existence?
It amazes me that so few people seem to realize this.
The final attack on 9/11 was foiled once word of what was going on got out - no airplane will ever be hijacked again because the passengers will tear any mofo who attempts it apart, and the air marshal will finish by shooting the pieces one by one. Yet we're all supposed to live in pants-shitting fear (be fearful, citizen... fearful!!!) of the Skeery Muslin Turrists taking over an airliner again.
Except that the TSA fails to detect between 50 and 100% of attempts to bring things onto planes by the government's own penetration testers. They are nothing but a bunch of BS bluster, and would never stop any cold and competent terrorist(s).
Fortunately for us, terrorists like al Qaeda are a bunch of emotional revenge-mad yahoos, too obsessed with someday eventually pulling off the next even bigger attack to realize how much damage, death and chaos a handful of guys with long guns and a good aim could do.
The situation you describe can't violate causality. In order to have become entangled, the particles must have been near to each other in the past before one of them was put on the slow boat to Bob's lab.
Funny you should mention Afghanistan... It turns out that the Red Army did, in fact, have a rather hard time there with the people who later became the Taliban. So hard, in fact, that they were eventually forced to retreat despite employing brutal tactics and the occupation was described as Russia's Vietnam.
The GP claims quite explicitly that all 3D printers are "nothing but scams" because they aren't full von Neumann machines, which is stupid. Whether you can get a better deal than a Makerbot has nothing to do with that.
There is no physical tunnel for neutrinos. They are so nearly non-interacting that the only things in the universe that can significantly block them are neutron stars. A neutrino-generating facility simply calculates the conservation of momentum and aims its beam of interacting particles such that the resulting neutrinos fly off towards the detector of their choice, whether it be down the hall or across the world.
Agree with the sentiment. But just to nitpick, tube-based computers were pretty cleanly on the way out by the time the IC was invented (1958-1960). Even a discrete point-contact transistor is smaller, more reliable and less power hungry than a tube.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure the thought of your gun will have the government's paramilitary SWAT team quaking in their boots as they simultaneously break down your door and throw a flashbang into your bedroom.
Like when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1955 at the behest of big oil?
Or when Reagan sold weapons to Iran to finance South American death squads?
Or when Rummy was over in Iraq at the same time, shaking hands with Saddam?
And let's not get started about the things it does for the MAFIAA...
The US is a lot better than previous empires in history (look up what the Romans did to Carthage if you doubt), but you're utterly delusional if you think the US's history for the last 60 years has been one of anything but empire, enforced largely by violence or the threat of violence.
Next universe over, I suppose, it's safe to assume someone's bitching about universities gouging for tuition and then not spending a comparative trifle to prevent their names from being porn urls?
So you're saying September actually does end outside .com? Let's keep it that way.
It's a quite simple calculus... The rates of bomb damage fall off as between r^2 (thermal effects) and r^3 (deposition of blast energy throughout the volume, etc). That's why you consider the killing radius of a concussion grenade vs a MOAB, then consider the astronomical amount of effort needed to build a single MOAB, and decide "I'd be better off wrapping a thousand concussion grenades in shrapnel and marketing them as 'frag grenades." The enormous increase in energy release per mass of nuclear explosives changes the prefactors, but the scaling behavior remains the same. Why go to the effort of building Tsar Bomba (a device so massive it could never actually be delivered to an enemy) to destroy everything in a 10 mile radius, when 3 bombs with 1/10 the yield (that are entirely practical to build and deliver over intercontinental distances) will probably do even more damage, when dropped in a triangle shape on that 20 mile wide disk?
IRL, 10+ megaton explosives were built when missile guidance systems could promise to put the bomb down within a few miles of the Soviet silo, and to break a hardened bunker/silo from miles out meant many megatons. Today they could choose which letter on the silo cover to drop it on, so there's no call for giant warheads.
Yeah, I saw in google news that they called that off. Something about the Zetas being a bunch of vicious psychopaths who promised to murder 10 innocent people for every one of them exposed.
Can we please either send in the military or end the idiotic drug prohibition, which has brought about a massive wave of organized crime (just like last time)?
Actual specs : 68500 Sparc64s, each with 8 cores. So every core can put away between 5 and 10 double-precision calculations every single cycle?
Wait, so England actually does have the equivalent of the American delusional separatist gun nut?
Strange, it was believed that all their ancestors migrated to, well, America...
I'm going to assume this is a joke, since no one would be stupid enough to actually conflate Bush's trillion-dollar, decade-long, 4000-soldiers-dead, 100000-civilians-dead, all-based-on-lies catastro-phuck with Obama spending less than 1/1000 that much to do exactly what he said he wanted - help a popular movement topple an insane (not "merely" stalinesque evil, but full-on dementia insane) dictator - with zero American casualties, in 6 months.
Between his enthusiastic expansion of illegal spying, his desire to expand the most spectacularly and massively failed policy of all time (the drug prohibition) and his otherwise lukewarm-at-best support for socially liberal policies, there's plenty shit he actually does wrong to whine about. There's no need to make shit up, sonny.
I never claimed that humans were the only driving term, or that climate change would drive us to extinction. It would take one hell of a disaster to do that.
I will most certainly claim that we and our activities are now acting as a dangerously strong and high-frequency driving term on the climate. And that along with this comes the potential that we can observe where the climate's state has been and where it's wandering to, of its own dalliance and external influences including us. And that as a part of industrialization, we may be able to nudge it into following a course more favorable for ourselves (e.g. one where the US midwest remains a breadbasket, and where Europe is habitable, and billions are displaced by coastal flooding). Above all else, I claim that we shouldn't sit around passively waiting for the bad things to happen.
Of course, we lack the raw power output to directly drive the climate so we have to act on secular rather than dynamic timescales. Given the evidence that the climate is moving in a bad direction, accelerated by us, it would be a good idea to figure shit out and get a move on with nudging in the right direction now. And before anyone asks, right means "the climate to which modern society is accustomed and altogether dependent on." Will it work? Maybe. Is it something we ought to try, in the name of saving billions from suffering and death? Oh hell yes.
It doesn't matter a bit. Until the consequences reach such catastrophic, region-depopulating proportions that the changes occurring can't possibly be ignored the denalism will continue to be sponsored (because that's convenient for certain big businesses in the short term, and they're too stupid to see they're shooting themselves in the face in the medium and long term).
By then it'll almost certainly be too late to do anything, either to prepare or attempt to moderate the changes. But I have no doubt that when that time comes, the denalists will pretend they are innocent and will continue to defend the handful of corporate interests that manipulated them. Remember how long the tobacco-sponsored lies about how smoking doesn't cause cancer kept up?
There are getting towards 10^23 molecules of gas in this two liter bottle, each too complex for its equation of motion to be solved alone. Any physicist who claims his model to be taking into account atomic behavior is talking complete bullshit, and anybody claiming their favorite equation of state makes accurate predictions is counting the hits and forgetting the misses.
Or, statistical predictions don't require knowing the exact behavior of each agent, and expectation values can take you a long way.
Somewhere among my first executive orders would be "Anyone who believes this shall be forced to sit through math classes narrated by the most boring person on earth until they can write out and explain in detail why it is wrong, and be pimp-slapped by MC Hawking every time they fail."
Eugenics might sound like a good idea on paper... until you come to the realization that no one who believes they have a right to dictate who else lives, dies and gets born must ever be allowed to have such a power.
Could it be that the reason no events have been observed is that none existed in the first place, and the threat of terrorism is massively overblown by "security" agencies seeking to motivate/necessitate their own existence?
It amazes me that so few people seem to realize this.
The final attack on 9/11 was foiled once word of what was going on got out - no airplane will ever be hijacked again because the passengers will tear any mofo who attempts it apart, and the air marshal will finish by shooting the pieces one by one. Yet we're all supposed to live in pants-shitting fear (be fearful, citizen... fearful!!!) of the Skeery Muslin Turrists taking over an airliner again.
Except that the TSA fails to detect between 50 and 100% of attempts to bring things onto planes by the government's own penetration testers. They are nothing but a bunch of BS bluster, and would never stop any cold and competent terrorist(s).
Fortunately for us, terrorists like al Qaeda are a bunch of emotional revenge-mad yahoos, too obsessed with someday eventually pulling off the next even bigger attack to realize how much damage, death and chaos a handful of guys with long guns and a good aim could do.
The situation you describe can't violate causality. In order to have become entangled, the particles must have been near to each other in the past before one of them was put on the slow boat to Bob's lab.
Funny you should mention Afghanistan... It turns out that the Red Army did, in fact, have a rather hard time there with the people who later became the Taliban. So hard, in fact, that they were eventually forced to retreat despite employing brutal tactics and the occupation was described as Russia's Vietnam.
The GP claims quite explicitly that all 3D printers are "nothing but scams" because they aren't full von Neumann machines, which is stupid. Whether you can get a better deal than a Makerbot has nothing to do with that.
I see, so either it's completely worthless or it's equivalent to a fully self-replicating von Neumann machine.
Have you always been this stupid?
There is no physical tunnel for neutrinos. They are so nearly non-interacting that the only things in the universe that can significantly block them are neutron stars. A neutrino-generating facility simply calculates the conservation of momentum and aims its beam of interacting particles such that the resulting neutrinos fly off towards the detector of their choice, whether it be down the hall or across the world.
Ask Google about "Kids for Cash" if you doubt the privatized prison industry will pervert the justice system in order to wrongly imprison people.
Wouldn't happen. L1 point is unstable.
Agree with the sentiment. But just to nitpick, tube-based computers were pretty cleanly on the way out by the time the IC was invented (1958-1960). Even a discrete point-contact transistor is smaller, more reliable and less power hungry than a tube.