Truly. It is a shit magazine with very little content. Little wonder it is a favorite of intellectually-challenged slashdot eidtors.
Yeah, those eidtors are jerks. Good thing the editors keep 'em in line.
Re:Cool application!
on
Mastering Light
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You forgot X-rays... Now the old gag X-ray glasses could become a reality!
Sure, if you can manage to convice whoever you wanted to see through to walk in front of a device spewing x-rays. I don't really know what the attraction would be of seeing someone's skeleton, although it might be cool for a few minutes. It's not like you're going to see through just someone's clothes, unless they're sheer/transparent/over on the floor in the corner, and you don't need special glasses and deadly radiation for that. Maybe for doctors...but still, there has to be a source for the x-rays, and they're still dangerous. your eyes would be protected...but what about the rest of you?
Re:Invisibility possible now?
on
Mastering Light
·
· Score: 1
Well, I woulda thought the transistor counts on modern GPUs were impossible just a few years ago. I mean, it's freaking insane. And yes, I meant GPU. They have more transistors and are actually more complicated to make than p4 CPUs. (referring of course to high end chips on both sides of the comparison) The stuff they can do....perhaps figure out a way to mount the things on a membrane of some sort? I'm just spitballing here, but you could cut some corners. You wouldn't have to worry about *all* kinds of radiated energy because most of them you wouldn't care about. Also, you don't really have to worry about light coming from *inside* so the shock waves for each tiny piece would be going the same direction always, or at least a less than 360 degree subset of directions. I don't know, I really don't want to think too much about how they could actually do it, cause honestly I'd rather no-one had the power to appear invisible. I think there's too much intrusiveness now, if every square meter of 'empty' space could be housing some stealthed camera or hell even a stealhed cop... that gets into scary territory. (not to mention the pain of discovering one the hard way) it's OT but I really hate that old argument about 'if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be mad about even the most extremely embarassing and intrusive searches/info gathering/government watching.' I mean, I don't have anything *illegal* to hide, but I really don't want some freaking government lacky watching me take a dump, or discovering my framed Christina Aguilera poster, or listening to the 'conversations' I have with the PS2 when I'm stuck on a game, or any of a thousand other things. If there's someone always watching, when do you scratch your embarassing itches? When do you get drunk with a good friend and sing along to oldies stations? (okay I don't do that anyways, but I saw it on Lifetime so it must be true)
The point is, just because I'm not doing anything illegal doesn't mean I'm not doing anything *private*. Law enforcement doesn't always seem to make a distinction. I'm not saying that ALL law enforcers are control freaks that feel they have a right to know what is going on anywhere anytime, but those people *do* exist, and what other type of career would you have, if you wanted to snoop? I mean, sure you could be an intelligence agent or something, but the employment opportunities have to be more abundant in city and state law enforcement. Not to mention what this tech would go for on the black market... cripes! Just look at the amount of drugs and firearms that 'vanish' from police and government evidence rooms every year, or the fact that 15 year old kids just about anywhere can get access to fully automatic rifles...
Man, if this technique ever ends up in law enforcement/military hands... imagine all the FUD the news agencies will be able to create. They'll keep 'experts' employed for years with this.
Re:Invisibility possible now?
on
Mastering Light
·
· Score: 1
As I understand it, they feel they can be very precise. They should be able to anticipate which types of energy waves they will most likely come into contact with and prepare for it. I mean, throwing a few billion dollars at a problem has a strange knack for getting it solved. I only hope that 0.1 nanosecond delay would be measurable, say for example, if you notice your radar pulses are coming back 0.1 nanoseconds later than expected, in a plane-shaped region, you'd know it was there. I don't have any real, solid ideas, this is all just wild speculation...but that's what makes life fun. Well, that and calculating actuarial tables.
Re:Invisibility possible now?
on
Mastering Light
·
· Score: 1
Not to mention that the (constant?) shock waves required to generate this miracle of frequency shift might be a wee bit uncomfortable to endure bodily.
True, but shift the idea toward say, a layer of these things coating a jet....or a bomber.... you could fairly easily (with the Pentagon's budget) insulate the pilots from the shockwaves, or just fly the plane remotely. Alternatively, just covering missiles with this stuff would probably work too. It'd be expensive to blow them up, but that hasn't stopped 'em from making Tomahawks and bunker-busters.
To me, it's just like almost any science: you can use it in applications both beneficial and harmful. Even anti-disease research was hijacked by various governments to make better biological weapons. I really hope that this tech (should it develop practical applications and find a market niche) will be used wisely. However, humanity's track record causes me to expect the worst, even while I hope for the best.
Just because you happen to agree with a news source does NOT make it unbiased. News no longer means objective reporting solely of facts. If you can say that CNN or MSNBC or any local network affiliate has a news program consisting solely of objective, fact-based reporting, or if you can even find *any* content of that type, you're lying. At least Fox is honest. They don't try to slip their bias by anyone. You're completely free to change the freaking channel, you idiot. What are you afraid of? That maybe you'll actually hear something that makes sense for once in your life? That fox's news personnel are so darn hypnotic that you'll have your core beliefs changed for you against your will? Are they *that* weak? Why can't liberals have their news channels that they...oh wait, they do. Only they like to pretend that 'liberal slant' = 'unbiased'. News these days isn't even really news anymore. Not since they started having to sell commercials on the 6 o'clock news, and 8 inches of ad space for every 4 column inches in the print media. News these days consists of speculation followed by wild rumor followed by talking heads making random predictions that no one remembers 20 minutes after they've failed to come true. (this applies to Fox news, as well. I don't really like Fox news, I just support their right to conduct their news programs how they want.) If it doesn't work, they'll lose money. If they're not going away, then people must like it. Just cause you don't like something does not mean it should be denied to everyone else. Ask fundamentalist Christian pretenders (no real Christian could hate so many people) about organizing around the 'We don't like it so no one gets it' campaign. And by the way.... Fox News is a cable tv news network... reuters and AP are news wire services. now who's comparing apples and oranges? It's funny. I can hear the exact same AP story on Fox and on ABC, and the tone will be completely different. Just use this rule of thumb: if the reporter says anything you *agree* or *disagree* with (i'm not talking about the veracity of the data, just the way it is presented) then what you are hearing is biased. If you can find a major news network, or heck, even a national network, that provides truly unbiased reporting, you're living in a dream world.
and by the way....fox has a duty to employ people with certain POLITICAL BELIEFS?!?! Who says? Does CNN have an obligation to hire Pat Buchanan? Equal time went away a long time ago, buddy. You don't like it? Start your own fucking national news network.
He was making a reductio ad absurdum argument, by taking an argument and applying it with the same force but the opposite intent. This is a useful technique. It can be used to highlight all sorts of internalised bias. e.g., "The US was justified in invading Vietnam in order to protect it from itself" vs. "Vietnam would be justified in invading the US in order to protect it from itself". See how it works? Try it yourself on what comes out of Fox News sometime.
Try it like this: Fox News is wrong for having opinions and reflecting them in communications.
You are wrong for having opinions and reflecting them in communications.
Dipshit.
You do know that the puppet-iraq gov is going to hand over untold numbers of oil contracts to american firms eh? this is the real prize here... how many years of pumping cash out of the desert is going to goto the US-Oil now that you've invaded and occupy Iraq?
The present bickering about 'reconstruction contracts' is missing the really big show. Thats going to be many many many billions in oil plunder.
Hey dipshit, check this out: if all the US wanted was to be imperialist and take somebody's oil... South America is a lot freaking closer. Not only could we stage from our own country, but the distribution of the oil afterwards would be much easier. Plus, we could always use the war on drugs bullshit that gets trotted out when the government wants to do bad things in third world countries. Also, if we wanted to take over a country, I think Iraq is a far less beautiful and useful country than say...Venezuela.
And for that matter, as far as oil revenue goes... where the hell do you think it went before this year? To the Iraqi people? Hell no! It went to buy saddam's son some pr0n and American movies and got stuck in palaces in trunks, in foreign banks, and invested into terrorist activities and also paid for saddam to live like madonna, to be the biggest fish in his pond. Now, some of that money goes to America. Well, we were the ones who stopped saddam from getting it. Most of the world wanted to keep the status quo, where saddam took *all* the money, rather than institute programs that give at least *some* of that money to the people of Iraq. Sure, maybe they'll be in debt for a while. Kinda like how if you borrow money to go to college, you might be in debt for a while when you get out. Things cost money. Maybe one day we'll be able to convert energy into matter and make everything we need for free. Until then, TANSTAAFL. Deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Truly. It is a shit magazine with very little content. Little wonder it is a favorite of intellectually-challenged slashdot eidtors. Yeah, those eidtors are jerks. Good thing the editors keep 'em in line.
You forgot X-rays... Now the old gag X-ray glasses could become a reality!
Sure, if you can manage to convice whoever you wanted to see through to walk in front of a device spewing x-rays. I don't really know what the attraction would be of seeing someone's skeleton, although it might be cool for a few minutes. It's not like you're going to see through just someone's clothes, unless they're sheer/transparent/over on the floor in the corner, and you don't need special glasses and deadly radiation for that.
Maybe for doctors...but still, there has to be a source for the x-rays, and they're still dangerous. your eyes would be protected...but what about the rest of you?
Well, I woulda thought the transistor counts on modern GPUs were impossible just a few years ago. I mean, it's freaking insane. And yes, I meant GPU. They have more transistors and are actually more complicated to make than p4 CPUs. (referring of course to high end chips on both sides of the comparison) The stuff they can do....perhaps figure out a way to mount the things on a membrane of some sort? I'm just spitballing here, but you could cut some corners. You wouldn't have to worry about *all* kinds of radiated energy because most of them you wouldn't care about. Also, you don't really have to worry about light coming from *inside* so the shock waves for each tiny piece would be going the same direction always, or at least a less than 360 degree subset of directions. I don't know, I really don't want to think too much about how they could actually do it, cause honestly I'd rather no-one had the power to appear invisible. I think there's too much intrusiveness now, if every square meter of 'empty' space could be housing some stealthed camera or hell even a stealhed cop... that gets into scary territory. (not to mention the pain of discovering one the hard way) it's OT but I really hate that old argument about 'if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be mad about even the most extremely embarassing and intrusive searches/info gathering/government watching.' I mean, I don't have anything *illegal* to hide, but I really don't want some freaking government lacky watching me take a dump, or discovering my framed Christina Aguilera poster, or listening to the 'conversations' I have with the PS2 when I'm stuck on a game, or any of a thousand other things. If there's someone always watching, when do you scratch your embarassing itches? When do you get drunk with a good friend and sing along to oldies stations? (okay I don't do that anyways, but I saw it on Lifetime so it must be true) The point is, just because I'm not doing anything illegal doesn't mean I'm not doing anything *private*. Law enforcement doesn't always seem to make a distinction. I'm not saying that ALL law enforcers are control freaks that feel they have a right to know what is going on anywhere anytime, but those people *do* exist, and what other type of career would you have, if you wanted to snoop? I mean, sure you could be an intelligence agent or something, but the employment opportunities have to be more abundant in city and state law enforcement. Not to mention what this tech would go for on the black market... cripes! Just look at the amount of drugs and firearms that 'vanish' from police and government evidence rooms every year, or the fact that 15 year old kids just about anywhere can get access to fully automatic rifles... Man, if this technique ever ends up in law enforcement/military hands... imagine all the FUD the news agencies will be able to create. They'll keep 'experts' employed for years with this.
As I understand it, they feel they can be very precise. They should be able to anticipate which types of energy waves they will most likely come into contact with and prepare for it. I mean, throwing a few billion dollars at a problem has a strange knack for getting it solved. I only hope that 0.1 nanosecond delay would be measurable, say for example, if you notice your radar pulses are coming back 0.1 nanoseconds later than expected, in a plane-shaped region, you'd know it was there. I don't have any real, solid ideas, this is all just wild speculation...but that's what makes life fun. Well, that and calculating actuarial tables.
Not to mention that the (constant?) shock waves required to generate this miracle of frequency shift might be a wee bit uncomfortable to endure bodily.
True, but shift the idea toward say, a layer of these things coating a jet....or a bomber....
you could fairly easily (with the Pentagon's budget) insulate the pilots from the shockwaves, or just fly the plane remotely. Alternatively, just covering missiles with this stuff would probably work too. It'd be expensive to blow them up, but that hasn't stopped 'em from making Tomahawks and bunker-busters.
To me, it's just like almost any science: you can use it in applications both beneficial and harmful. Even anti-disease research was hijacked by various governments to make better biological weapons. I really hope that this tech (should it develop practical applications and find a market niche) will be used wisely. However, humanity's track record causes me to expect the worst, even while I hope for the best.
Just because you happen to agree with a news source does NOT make it unbiased. News no longer means objective reporting solely of facts. If you can say that CNN or MSNBC or any local network affiliate has a news program consisting solely of objective, fact-based reporting, or if you can even find *any* content of that type, you're lying. At least Fox is honest. They don't try to slip their bias by anyone. You're completely free to change the freaking channel, you idiot. What are you afraid of? That maybe you'll actually hear something that makes sense for once in your life? That fox's news personnel are so darn hypnotic that you'll have your core beliefs changed for you against your will? Are they *that* weak? Why can't liberals have their news channels that they...oh wait, they do. Only they like to pretend that 'liberal slant' = 'unbiased'. News these days isn't even really news anymore. Not since they started having to sell commercials on the 6 o'clock news, and 8 inches of ad space for every 4 column inches in the print media. News these days consists of speculation followed by wild rumor followed by talking heads making random predictions that no one remembers 20 minutes after they've failed to come true. (this applies to Fox news, as well. I don't really like Fox news, I just support their right to conduct their news programs how they want.) If it doesn't work, they'll lose money. If they're not going away, then people must like it. Just cause you don't like something does not mean it should be denied to everyone else. Ask fundamentalist Christian pretenders (no real Christian could hate so many people) about organizing around the 'We don't like it so no one gets it' campaign. And by the way.... Fox News is a cable tv news network... reuters and AP are news wire services. now who's comparing apples and oranges? It's funny. I can hear the exact same AP story on Fox and on ABC, and the tone will be completely different. Just use this rule of thumb: if the reporter says anything you *agree* or *disagree* with (i'm not talking about the veracity of the data, just the way it is presented) then what you are hearing is biased. If you can find a major news network, or heck, even a national network, that provides truly unbiased reporting, you're living in a dream world. and by the way....fox has a duty to employ people with certain POLITICAL BELIEFS?!?! Who says? Does CNN have an obligation to hire Pat Buchanan? Equal time went away a long time ago, buddy. You don't like it? Start your own fucking national news network.
He was making a reductio ad absurdum argument, by taking an argument and applying it with the same force but the opposite intent. This is a useful technique. It can be used to highlight all sorts of internalised bias. e.g., "The US was justified in invading Vietnam in order to protect it from itself" vs. "Vietnam would be justified in invading the US in order to protect it from itself". See how it works? Try it yourself on what comes out of Fox News sometime.
Try it like this: Fox News is wrong for having opinions and reflecting them in communications. You are wrong for having opinions and reflecting them in communications. Dipshit.
You do know that the puppet-iraq gov is going to hand over untold numbers of oil contracts to american firms eh? this is the real prize here... how many years of pumping cash out of the desert is going to goto the US-Oil now that you've invaded and occupy Iraq?
The present bickering about 'reconstruction contracts' is missing the really big show. Thats going to be many many many billions in oil plunder.
Hey dipshit, check this out: if all the US wanted was to be imperialist and take somebody's oil... South America is a lot freaking closer. Not only could we stage from our own country, but the distribution of the oil afterwards would be much easier. Plus, we could always use the war on drugs bullshit that gets trotted out when the government wants to do bad things in third world countries. Also, if we wanted to take over a country, I think Iraq is a far less beautiful and useful country than say...Venezuela.
And for that matter, as far as oil revenue goes...
where the hell do you think it went before this year? To the Iraqi people? Hell no! It went to buy saddam's son some pr0n and American movies and got stuck in palaces in trunks, in foreign banks, and invested into terrorist activities and also paid for saddam to live like madonna, to be the biggest fish in his pond. Now, some of that money goes to America. Well, we were the ones who stopped saddam from getting it. Most of the world wanted to keep the status quo, where saddam took *all* the money, rather than institute programs that give at least *some* of that money to the people of Iraq. Sure, maybe they'll be in debt for a while. Kinda like how if you borrow money to go to college, you might be in debt for a while when you get out. Things cost money. Maybe one day we'll be able to convert energy into matter and make everything we need for free. Until then, TANSTAAFL. Deal with it.