IPv6 would stop worms too. I'm sorry but if the worm actually finds a hit in as many IP addresses as IPv6 gives, it deserves to infect that machine. Current worms just guess IP addresses, and go figure they find them all the time.
Slashdot is great and all, but we don't get good links. We get links to sites that are by definition slashdotted. How about some non-slashdotted links one of these days?
I don't like the logical fallacy. If we can't do it, it's not possible. I mean sure, there's a lot of BS floating around and they are right about most of it. But some of their crap is just wrong. They change things from time to time that they say isn't going to have an effect, such as the drag of a car with windows open at a slower speed, which obvious will have a profound effect. And they jump to conclusions that they really can't.
There was a brief show called Proof Positive a while back, that did the same thing. If they couldn't figure out how they person was wrong or made up the hoax, it's proof of the supernatural.
The folks showing that you can do this, does seem to show that the "we failed, so it can't be done" line isn't actually accurate.
I understand if you go through all the hoops and can't prove you can do it, it would just be bad TV to say, well we've found no evidence to support the hypothesis. No, they have to have proved it was wrong.
Making up a new theory to fit a problem is not a problem. Making theories to fit given data is the purpose of science. Making up a new theory that involves a lot of statements like: "you can't see it", "radiation travels through it", "it's invisible", "the only interaction it has is to make this equation fit", "it exists as a halo around the galaxy", "it works in mysterous ways" is a problem.
Making up a theory to fit given observations is a good idea. Making up an extra theory when the predictions of the old theory fail is a fairly poor idea. It seems even more silly when you consider the "old theory" they were using was Newton (under the assumption it wouldn't matter much).
It's not wrong to make a theory, or improve a theory, but typically it's a poor idea to concoct another theory to explain why your first theory didn't explain things properly.
I'm so happy this main reason for Dark Matter finally got explained with standard physics.
I didn't quite buy the whole idea of Dark Matter, it wasn't scientific enough. We took a stab and said that there were phantom particles that we couldn't see and they were causing our observations to be different from what they should be. It just seems like we assembled a mythos. DarkMatter, the God of the Slow Galactic Turn, floats unseen at the edge of all galaxies. 90% of all matter is dark matter, and no you cannot see any of it (short of one lensing effect from an unknown object). So verifying this theory is next to impossible. And after a while we took the leap to say that we were correct. Even though we just invented stuff to 'fix' the flawed equations. Not that we can't guess right the first time, but just inventing a solution with no basis shouldn't hit the nail on the head.
I think the comparison between Luminiferous Aether and Dark Matter is one of the most prudent ones I've heard in a long while. Making something up to force your data to fit is a pretty bad idea. We can't be wrong. There's something that we cannot see that exists (does some calculations)... here; that makes the data roughly fit. It might as well have been the law of invisible elves of slow rotation.
And yes, if by some odd happening this gets peer reviewed dead... I still believe everything I said.
Yeah, but still you are carrying around all your personal data. It really would be profoundly better to have online applications that can do anything you need. Store all your stuff, letting you just use the computer as a shell to contact your data drifting around on some super-secure highly redundant network storage place. We just need computers programmed to boot off the internet.
Enter site: Enter username: Enter password:
Welcome.
Don't get me wrong it would take one hell of a virtual machine to fake any OS's over an internet connection. And some of the reading and writing would put the slowness of actual harddrives to shame. But, good fiber connections would outpace a real harddrive. Also, drivers and such would require that the OS be designed with that computer in mind, so there would need to be some standardization. But, all in all it would be totally possible. And you would be able to boot a shell that loads the VM and use the VM to emulate your "home" PC from anywhere in the world. We just need fiber connections everywhere in the world.
Am I the only one who takes silent to mean that it's never going to make any noise? I'm sure with the/. users out there, everybody asks the question, oh really, how would you do it?
Personally I would seal up the power supply, then have it filled with oil. Remove the fan, and coat the outside with heatsink bars. It's either that or alter the form factor of the powersupply by removing it from the console box. Probably combining it with an UPS and just use the extra area to properly disperse the heat, replacing the powersuppy box with an empty box that takes DC in and splits it up properly (just wires). You can also increase the efficiency of the box so it stops burning off a lot of power as heat. Or any combination of the three.
In case you folks haven't I'll Karma-whore the whole list out.
1) Star Trek (TOS) 2) Battlestar Galactica (new) 3) Star Trek (TNG) 4) X-Files 5) Babylon 5 6) Stargate SG-1 7) The Twilight Zone 8) Dr. Who 9) Mystery Science Theater 3000 10) Sliders 11) Lost 12) Xena: Warrior Pincess 13) The Outer Limits 14) Star Trek (VOY) 15) Logan's Run 16) Flash Gordon 17) Firefly 18) V 19) Dark Angel 20) The Hitchhiker 21) Quantum Leap 22) Andromeda 23) Tales from the Crypt 24) Wonder Woman 25) The Jetsons 26) Stargate Atlantis 27) Buffy the Vampire Slayer 28) Adventures of Superman 29) The Six Million Dollar Man 30) Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea 31) Alien Nation 32) My Favorite Martian 33) Lost in Space 34) The Avengers 35) Battlestar Galactica (Original) 36) The Bionic Woman 37) Space 1999 38) Batman 39) The man from U.N.C.L.E 40) The Thunderbirds 41) Futurama 42) Science Fiction Theater 43) Nowhere Man 44) Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman 45) The Greatest American Hero 46) That Was Then 47) Buck Rogers in the 25th Century 48) 3rd Rock From the Sun 49) Wild Wild West 50) Earth: Final Conflict
DS9, Earth 2, First Wave, Space Above and Beyond, Crusade, Enterprise, Max Headroom, Farscape they missed some major ones, and included some totally non-scifi ones.
Agreed, that was a little stupid. They had a few other references that were just out of the way. As a general rule of sci-fi, you don't make any references to religion (unless it's an alien religion). But, SAAB was a good show, in fact, I think episode 17 "Sugar Dirt" was the best episode of any scifi show ever.
I think we should just drop the name. It can still exist, but not in a scientific context. We just go with MVEMJSUNP as "planets" and make up words with given definitions before we start trying to apply them them to things.
BOOS: Big Objects Orbiting Star.
BOOBOOS: Big Objects Orbiting Big Objects Orbiting Star.
LOOS: Little Objects Orbiting Star.
FOSC: Floating Outer Space Crap.
Planet: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto.
Oh, and since I know you'll ask the difference between a BOOS and a LOOS is that a BOOS is large enough that it's own gravity keeps it roughly spherical.
Yeah, because somebody has to talk about the state of theOnion. Other than that great page from the future it's been pretty rote lately. Here I was hoping somebody had noticed and was talking about it's current abysmal state. It use to be the funniest site on the net.
They are the same thing. Look, if they paid money for good movies that would just increase the demand to pirate them. By creating a crap-factory they can be sure that a large subsections in the geek community don't pirate anything.
Walking around with a scanner is too much work. What you really need is a really small scanner with a meg or two of memory say about the size of a sticker, and put it on a sticker and stick it near the scanner at a merchant. Come back in a week or so and you'll have a few thousand CC#. The scanning chip should be dirt easy and super tiny. You should be able to put them in just about anything in a few years.
Also another great scam is going to be those stupid turnstiles on subways and the like. Everybody seems to push the bar and put their right butt cheak (usually has the wallet) right next to the side. Have a reader planted just inside the turnstile (with wifi access) and it could be sending you a thousand CC# a day everyday. Don't get me wrong, but this is a bad idea. It would be far better to have some data you generate with some biometric reading and use that.
And by biometric reading I don't mean a chip in the hand. Then I might have to just shake your hand to steal your information.
Well, yeah, most places I would assume contain slightly complex carbon molecules. If it's not on Earth it will be around for a while. It's just Earth has life, and life eats minorly complex (organic) molecules for breakfast. I don't think such things are that rare. And other than getting them from outerspace rocks (note we got everything from such things) there's no reason to think that life developed anywhere but here. I'll give you quasi-organic molecules on spacerocks but, I wouldn't go so far as to conclude they had life on them before they got here. Just because the material for life is everywhere doesn't mean actual life is everywhere.
It is not a question of whether or not it could have developed on Earth, but a question of whether or not it did.
You are making things more complex needlessly. You might as well ask that I accept panspermia on faith. With no evidence you are adding like two steps to the process. Life developing elsewhere, surviving two impact events (count them one to knock them off Genesis world and another to land here), and ending up here. To counteract the typical theory that only involves 'life developing here', which, to date, doesn't need any help.
Perhaps we should rule out the simple and plausible before jumping to alien microbes seeding our planet, from far off distant worlds, surviving two major impact events, radiation and empty space needed to make the journey here.
One thing that favors panspermia is that if life developed on Earth instead, then that would be granting a great amount of special significance on this planet;
The theory of reverse Copernicus? Since we are not the center of the universe, nothing can happen here. I know where you're coming from. Too many ideas have been wrong who's only merit was that it made us seem more special. But, here panspermia has no merit and the other idea is quite plausible.
I don't see abiogensis showing that life is really really hard to cook up. And I'm not going to accept a theory with no merit because it supposes something important happened here. Why not suggest that Music is really amazing and why do we think we are so special to have invented it ourselves. It obviously must be aliens who invented everything and made everything happen. Because nothing can happen here.
Also, I don't really think we are that special. I don't think abiogensis is that jaw-dropping. What's actually jaw-dropping is 2 billion years of evolution to lead to us. But, surely that makes us seem overly special, I'm sure some alien rocks made us evolve too. It's not hard to get a few proteins to stick together (oversimplification), saying that it has to be done elsewhere to de-special Earth is stupid. There's such a thing as overcompensation. You're just outsourcing the special to something unneeded. I'm not saying we are the center of the universe, I'm just saying there's no evidence for panspermia or reason to even suppose that it's true.
Personally I always hate panspermia. It seemed to fail Occams Razor pretty soundly. Yes, life on this planet came from an asteroid or comet from another planet. Well, if life can exist there to bring it here why can't it just develop here. Seemed like a big waste of time to me. I see no reason we cannot have a homegrown abiogensis on good old Earth. It's not like we hit some major hitch and need an alternate explanation that explains nothing.
TV.com is going to fall, they don't provide proper functionality. I miss my great list new shows on tonight. Without that function (which wikis do a sorry job at automatically creating) I don't see any sight holding my interest.
TV.com has a what's on tonight thing, but it doesn't tell what is new and what's just on.
Depends on if you signed over your copyright with submitting or if you simply gave permission to TVtome.com to use the work in anyway they see fit. It could easily be either. I tried to check on archive.org but couldn't find the copyright info. Although, I think from a legal stance you have to have your own copy.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA.
It's not a new review. It's the Register commenting on the GamePC article.
From Article: "GamePC got its hands on some of the Xeons - code-named "Paxville" - and put the chips through a battery of tests."
The original poster didn't RTFA either, and made the same incorrect claim as you did.
IPv6 would stop worms too. I'm sorry but if the worm actually finds a hit in as many IP addresses as IPv6 gives, it deserves to infect that machine. Current worms just guess IP addresses, and go figure they find them all the time.
Slashdot is great and all, but we don't get good links. We get links to sites that are by definition slashdotted. How about some non-slashdotted links one of these days?
I don't like the logical fallacy. If we can't do it, it's not possible. I mean sure, there's a lot of BS floating around and they are right about most of it. But some of their crap is just wrong. They change things from time to time that they say isn't going to have an effect, such as the drag of a car with windows open at a slower speed, which obvious will have a profound effect. And they jump to conclusions that they really can't.
There was a brief show called Proof Positive a while back, that did the same thing. If they couldn't figure out how they person was wrong or made up the hoax, it's proof of the supernatural.
The folks showing that you can do this, does seem to show that the "we failed, so it can't be done" line isn't actually accurate.
I understand if you go through all the hoops and can't prove you can do it, it would just be bad TV to say, well we've found no evidence to support the hypothesis. No, they have to have proved it was wrong.
How about the inability to sexually reproduce with the original species?
Okay, 15k years is a short enough time to still get DNA. Clone me one, I'll have a lot of sex with it and see if we can make a viable offspring.
Making up a new theory to fit a problem is not a problem. Making theories to fit given data is the purpose of science. Making up a new theory that involves a lot of statements like: "you can't see it", "radiation travels through it", "it's invisible", "the only interaction it has is to make this equation fit", "it exists as a halo around the galaxy", "it works in mysterous ways" is a problem.
Making up a theory to fit given observations is a good idea. Making up an extra theory when the predictions of the old theory fail is a fairly poor idea. It seems even more silly when you consider the "old theory" they were using was Newton (under the assumption it wouldn't matter much).
It's not wrong to make a theory, or improve a theory, but typically it's a poor idea to concoct another theory to explain why your first theory didn't explain things properly.
I'm so happy this main reason for Dark Matter finally got explained with standard physics.
I didn't quite buy the whole idea of Dark Matter, it wasn't scientific enough. We took a stab and said that there were phantom particles that we couldn't see and they were causing our observations to be different from what they should be. It just seems like we assembled a mythos. DarkMatter, the God of the Slow Galactic Turn, floats unseen at the edge of all galaxies. 90% of all matter is dark matter, and no you cannot see any of it (short of one lensing effect from an unknown object). So verifying this theory is next to impossible. And after a while we took the leap to say that we were correct. Even though we just invented stuff to 'fix' the flawed equations. Not that we can't guess right the first time, but just inventing a solution with no basis shouldn't hit the nail on the head.
I think the comparison between Luminiferous Aether and Dark Matter is one of the most prudent ones I've heard in a long while. Making something up to force your data to fit is a pretty bad idea. We can't be wrong. There's something that we cannot see that exists (does some calculations)... here; that makes the data roughly fit. It might as well have been the law of invisible elves of slow rotation.
And yes, if by some odd happening this gets peer reviewed dead... I still believe everything I said.
Yeah, but still you are carrying around all your personal data. It really would be profoundly better to have online applications that can do anything you need. Store all your stuff, letting you just use the computer as a shell to contact your data drifting around on some super-secure highly redundant network storage place. We just need computers programmed to boot off the internet.
Enter site:
Enter username:
Enter password:
Welcome.
Don't get me wrong it would take one hell of a virtual machine to fake any OS's over an internet connection. And some of the reading and writing would put the slowness of actual harddrives to shame. But, good fiber connections would outpace a real harddrive. Also, drivers and such would require that the OS be designed with that computer in mind, so there would need to be some standardization. But, all in all it would be totally possible. And you would be able to boot a shell that loads the VM and use the VM to emulate your "home" PC from anywhere in the world. We just need fiber connections everywhere in the world.
Did anybody else read this as a graphics card that nobody likes?
YES! You noticed it was from ASUS too?
Am I the only one who takes silent to mean that it's never going to make any noise? I'm sure with the /. users out there, everybody asks the question, oh really, how would you do it?
Personally I would seal up the power supply, then have it filled with oil. Remove the fan, and coat the outside with heatsink bars. It's either that or alter the form factor of the powersupply by removing it from the console box. Probably combining it with an UPS and just use the extra area to properly disperse the heat, replacing the powersuppy box with an empty box that takes DC in and splits it up properly (just wires). You can also increase the efficiency of the box so it stops burning off a lot of power as heat. Or any combination of the three.
Well, what other P2P programs are there? This one is dead.
In case you folks haven't I'll Karma-whore the whole list out.
1) Star Trek (TOS)
2) Battlestar Galactica (new)
3) Star Trek (TNG)
4) X-Files
5) Babylon 5
6) Stargate SG-1
7) The Twilight Zone
8) Dr. Who
9) Mystery Science Theater 3000
10) Sliders
11) Lost
12) Xena: Warrior Pincess
13) The Outer Limits
14) Star Trek (VOY)
15) Logan's Run
16) Flash Gordon
17) Firefly
18) V
19) Dark Angel
20) The Hitchhiker
21) Quantum Leap
22) Andromeda
23) Tales from the Crypt
24) Wonder Woman
25) The Jetsons
26) Stargate Atlantis
27) Buffy the Vampire Slayer
28) Adventures of Superman
29) The Six Million Dollar Man
30) Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea
31) Alien Nation
32) My Favorite Martian
33) Lost in Space
34) The Avengers
35) Battlestar Galactica (Original)
36) The Bionic Woman
37) Space 1999
38) Batman
39) The man from U.N.C.L.E
40) The Thunderbirds
41) Futurama
42) Science Fiction Theater
43) Nowhere Man
44) Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman
45) The Greatest American Hero
46) That Was Then
47) Buck Rogers in the 25th Century
48) 3rd Rock From the Sun
49) Wild Wild West
50) Earth: Final Conflict
DS9, Earth 2, First Wave, Space Above and Beyond, Crusade, Enterprise, Max Headroom, Farscape they missed some major ones, and included some totally non-scifi ones.
Agreed, that was a little stupid. They had a few other references that were just out of the way. As a general rule of sci-fi, you don't make any references to religion (unless it's an alien religion). But, SAAB was a good show, in fact, I think episode 17 "Sugar Dirt" was the best episode of any scifi show ever.
BFR are either LOOS LOOBOOS or FOSC. Depending what they are doing.
I think we should just drop the name. It can still exist, but not in a scientific context. We just go with MVEMJSUNP as "planets" and make up words with given definitions before we start trying to apply them them to things.
BOOS: Big Objects Orbiting Star.
BOOBOOS: Big Objects Orbiting Big Objects Orbiting Star.
LOOS: Little Objects Orbiting Star.
FOSC: Floating Outer Space Crap.
Planet: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto.
Oh, and since I know you'll ask the difference between a BOOS and a LOOS is that a BOOS is large enough that it's own gravity keeps it roughly spherical.
Yeah, because somebody has to talk about the state of theOnion. Other than that great page from the future it's been pretty rote lately. Here I was hoping somebody had noticed and was talking about it's current abysmal state. It use to be the funniest site on the net.
They are the same thing. Look, if they paid money for good movies that would just increase the demand to pirate them. By creating a crap-factory they can be sure that a large subsections in the geek community don't pirate anything.
Walking around with a scanner is too much work. What you really need is a really small scanner with a meg or two of memory say about the size of a sticker, and put it on a sticker and stick it near the scanner at a merchant. Come back in a week or so and you'll have a few thousand CC#. The scanning chip should be dirt easy and super tiny. You should be able to put them in just about anything in a few years.
Also another great scam is going to be those stupid turnstiles on subways and the like. Everybody seems to push the bar and put their right butt cheak (usually has the wallet) right next to the side. Have a reader planted just inside the turnstile (with wifi access) and it could be sending you a thousand CC# a day everyday. Don't get me wrong, but this is a bad idea. It would be far better to have some data you generate with some biometric reading and use that.
And by biometric reading I don't mean a chip in the hand. Then I might have to just shake your hand to steal your information.
Well, yeah, most places I would assume contain slightly complex carbon molecules. If it's not on Earth it will be around for a while. It's just Earth has life, and life eats minorly complex (organic) molecules for breakfast. I don't think such things are that rare. And other than getting them from outerspace rocks (note we got everything from such things) there's no reason to think that life developed anywhere but here. I'll give you quasi-organic molecules on spacerocks but, I wouldn't go so far as to conclude they had life on them before they got here. Just because the material for life is everywhere doesn't mean actual life is everywhere.
It is not a question of whether or not it could have developed on Earth, but a question of whether or not it did.
You are making things more complex needlessly. You might as well ask that I accept panspermia on faith. With no evidence you are adding like two steps to the process. Life developing elsewhere, surviving two impact events (count them one to knock them off Genesis world and another to land here), and ending up here. To counteract the typical theory that only involves 'life developing here', which, to date, doesn't need any help.
Perhaps we should rule out the simple and plausible before jumping to alien microbes seeding our planet, from far off distant worlds, surviving two major impact events, radiation and empty space needed to make the journey here.
One thing that favors panspermia is that if life developed on Earth instead, then that would be granting a great amount of special significance on this planet;
The theory of reverse Copernicus? Since we are not the center of the universe, nothing can happen here. I know where you're coming from. Too many ideas have been wrong who's only merit was that it made us seem more special. But, here panspermia has no merit and the other idea is quite plausible.
I don't see abiogensis showing that life is really really hard to cook up. And I'm not going to accept a theory with no merit because it supposes something important happened here. Why not suggest that Music is really amazing and why do we think we are so special to have invented it ourselves. It obviously must be aliens who invented everything and made everything happen. Because nothing can happen here.
Also, I don't really think we are that special. I don't think abiogensis is that jaw-dropping. What's actually jaw-dropping is 2 billion years of evolution to lead to us. But, surely that makes us seem overly special, I'm sure some alien rocks made us evolve too. It's not hard to get a few proteins to stick together (oversimplification), saying that it has to be done elsewhere to de-special Earth is stupid. There's such a thing as overcompensation. You're just outsourcing the special to something unneeded. I'm not saying we are the center of the universe, I'm just saying there's no evidence for panspermia or reason to even suppose that it's true.
Personally I always hate panspermia. It seemed to fail Occams Razor pretty soundly. Yes, life on this planet came from an asteroid or comet from another planet. Well, if life can exist there to bring it here why can't it just develop here. Seemed like a big waste of time to me. I see no reason we cannot have a homegrown abiogensis on good old Earth. It's not like we hit some major hitch and need an alternate explanation that explains nothing.
The other day Linux killed three people!
What Linux is the name of this fire we had a while back. Ah, the old Linux Fire.
TV.com is going to fall, they don't provide proper functionality. I miss my great list new shows on tonight. Without that function (which wikis do a sorry job at automatically creating) I don't see any sight holding my interest.
TV.com has a what's on tonight thing, but it doesn't tell what is new and what's just on.
Depends on if you signed over your copyright with submitting or if you simply gave permission to TVtome.com to use the work in anyway they see fit. It could easily be either. I tried to check on archive.org but couldn't find the copyright info. Although, I think from a legal stance you have to have your own copy.