I hope you're kidding. Unlike many of the others who got rich overnight, Cuban has managed to retain his wealth, and make it grow. Also, he sold two companies to two larger ones prior to the bust, not just the broadcast.com deal. How many people do you know who win the lottery twice in a row? The man saw an opportunity, and he took it, and I respect him for that.
We assume that any sufficiently advanced civilization will attempt to seek other such intelligences, just as we are doing with SETI and other smaller projects. Transmission by electromagnetic means is the most likely means of communication, due to its speed, relative simplicity, etc. We are looking for artificial patterns in received signals to suggest that it was created by intelligence and not by nature, that is, stars, clouds, whatever.
Because the laws of physics - most specifically the inverse square law - work against the transmission of electromagnetic energies over vast distances. Isn't efficiency the pinnacle of any advanced civilization?
Are you nuts? They are jailing the guy because he organized a MASSIVE effort to DEFACE the public street. If I went out and wrote "Vote Kerry!" on the sidewalk, I would not get arrested. If I told a few dozen others to write the same thing over the city...well, I hope you get the picture. It's a question of volume.
If you have difficulty seeing the difference between hopscotch guides and a widely distributed network of sidewalk defacement - then you're hopeless. You're probably even convinced that this was politically motivated.
Well, the difference being that it is a private school with its own set of laws. Even though the knee-jerk supporters of the first amendement will be up at arms about this, it's really a question of vandalism than anything else.
Even though the chalk is water-soluble, he admitted previously that it takes almost 2 weeks to wash off. I don't have a problem with his political stance - in fact, I agree with him - but the mere fact that his plan revolved around the defacement of public property is enough to warrant an arrest. IANAL, but writing stuff all over the sidewalk (over an extended area) - even in chalk - has to be against some local laws.
That is my thought also, but wouldn't Diebold benefit from implementing such a feature? I mean, won't they be able to make more money on the whole thing as a result of the added cost? I'm sure the taxpayers wouldn't mind. Perhaps outside of Slashdot and other similar sites - which have users who truly see the potential for fraud in computer-only votes - are the only ones who give a rat's arse.:(
But the point is that with a paper trail, you have some sort of solid record. Each person hands in one receipt when they finish voting; without one, an unliminted number of votes could be cast, and thus, we'd be in a worse situation. Florida-type situations are not prevented, but further problems of uncast votes would take place.
Why would it be so damn hard for the e-voting machines to print out a receipt after a person votes - a receipt that is retained by the states? The whole point of e-voting is ease of use - maybe even cheaper deployment. But why would it be so hard to implement such a system...or is it all politics & big business?
It's doesn't take "huge" power. In fact, it takes relatively little. The current infrastructure can very well handle the demands. Electricity costs cents. The production of hydrogen, its transportation, and given its unique state (pun unintended), shipping costs will be dramatically high.
I disagree. On Alan Alda's "Scientific American Frontiers," they showed a novel approach in which hydrogen is produced "on site." That is, it uses a reverse fuel cell in every "hydrogen station" to develop hydrogen, then it is liquified, and delivered via hydrogen pumps, much like the way you pump gas, but with a slightly different hookup. That, in my opinion, is a better means of distribution as it completely eliminates the need for transport, pipes, large factories, and so forth.
Kudos to the guy or gal who did this. I personally don't consider anything under 12 inches to be worthwhile, but now I'll think twice about ruling-out the potential of such small telescopes.
I disagree. The reactor was safe...as long as it was used within its parameters. Anything that is not used within its parameters has the potential to be deadly. The fact that it could also be used for weapons is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The real point is that a human did something he/she was not supposed to do at that time, regardless of all other factors. And you can be sure that humans don't fail because? This was a case that clearly demonstrated that. Humans are always the ones making mistakes. You could simply have backup computers to prevent the failure of one computer from causing any problem for the whole. As I suggested, you could always have humans, but they would not have critical functions under their control, but would only serve as observational eyes and ears, in addition to the computer.
The bottom line is that this was not caused by an improper design - as it was used for some 30 years before and since the accident, albeit with some later modifications (IIRC) - but due to human error. This is obviously a tech site, so a better solution to nuclear stations would be completely eliminate the human factor. Why can't we have computers monitoring absolutely everything? From gas levels, to water levels, to the state of important components, and so forth. What do the human technicians do at this time that a computer cannot? We can certainly have a human present to monitor all the statistics, but to eliminate all control which would allow such a catastrophe to take place.
I don't consider the loss of life of Chernobyl to be significant in quantity, as compared to war, non-nuclear accidents, disease, famine, et cetera - which is not to say that life lost due to the accident is insiginificant (on the contrary, of course) - but its greatest blow was to the field of Nuclear Energy. As others have pointed out, it is potentially much more cleaner, but the stigma which was created as a result of the accident has had tremendous effect on public opinion. I would wager that more individuals have died pursuing other means of energy production than nuclear, but that hardly matters in the eyes of the uninformed public, politicians, and so forth. Sad, really.
I can't get the image of the ionized blue air out of my mind. It must have been deathly beautiful.
Could you be any more off-topic? I know you are all genetically programmed to hate Microsoft, but many of the larger exploits on Windows were fixed and patches issued ahead of time. The end-result was mostly due to user naivity, who chose not to upgrade.
What a sad way to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. One bomb would have sufficed, but since ending the war was not their only motive, they had to drop two to test their effectiveness. It has to be the darkest moment in American history.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you're kidding. Unlike many of the others who got rich overnight, Cuban has managed to retain his wealth, and make it grow. Also, he sold two companies to two larger ones prior to the bust, not just the broadcast.com deal. How many people do you know who win the lottery twice in a row? The man saw an opportunity, and he took it, and I respect him for that.
You're not being original by ripping off someone's recent idea without giving them credit.
1/r^2 stands true for all electromagnetic waves. That means the intensity of the signal will decrease by the square of its distance.
We assume that any sufficiently advanced civilization will attempt to seek other such intelligences, just as we are doing with SETI and other smaller projects. Transmission by electromagnetic means is the most likely means of communication, due to its speed, relative simplicity, etc. We are looking for artificial patterns in received signals to suggest that it was created by intelligence and not by nature, that is, stars, clouds, whatever.
Because the laws of physics - most specifically the inverse square law - work against the transmission of electromagnetic energies over vast distances. Isn't efficiency the pinnacle of any advanced civilization?
Are you nuts? They are jailing the guy because he organized a MASSIVE effort to DEFACE the public street. If I went out and wrote "Vote Kerry!" on the sidewalk, I would not get arrested. If I told a few dozen others to write the same thing over the city...well, I hope you get the picture. It's a question of volume.
If you have difficulty seeing the difference between hopscotch guides and a widely distributed network of sidewalk defacement - then you're hopeless. You're probably even convinced that this was politically motivated.
Well, the difference being that it is a private school with its own set of laws. Even though the knee-jerk supporters of the first amendement will be up at arms about this, it's really a question of vandalism than anything else.
Even though the chalk is water-soluble, he admitted previously that it takes almost 2 weeks to wash off. I don't have a problem with his political stance - in fact, I agree with him - but the mere fact that his plan revolved around the defacement of public property is enough to warrant an arrest. IANAL, but writing stuff all over the sidewalk (over an extended area) - even in chalk - has to be against some local laws.
That is my thought also, but wouldn't Diebold benefit from implementing such a feature? I mean, won't they be able to make more money on the whole thing as a result of the added cost? I'm sure the taxpayers wouldn't mind. Perhaps outside of Slashdot and other similar sites - which have users who truly see the potential for fraud in computer-only votes - are the only ones who give a rat's arse. :(
I'm glad. :)
But the point is that with a paper trail, you have some sort of solid record. Each person hands in one receipt when they finish voting; without one, an unliminted number of votes could be cast, and thus, we'd be in a worse situation. Florida-type situations are not prevented, but further problems of uncast votes would take place.
Why would it be so damn hard for the e-voting machines to print out a receipt after a person votes - a receipt that is retained by the states? The whole point of e-voting is ease of use - maybe even cheaper deployment. But why would it be so hard to implement such a system...or is it all politics & big business?
You forgot Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged! :P
God, do you live to spout out shit like that?
That is an agreement, correct? Sort of difficult to tell your implicit stance.
It's doesn't take "huge" power. In fact, it takes relatively little. The current infrastructure can very well handle the demands. Electricity costs cents. The production of hydrogen, its transportation, and given its unique state (pun unintended), shipping costs will be dramatically high.
I disagree. On Alan Alda's "Scientific American Frontiers," they showed a novel approach in which hydrogen is produced "on site." That is, it uses a reverse fuel cell in every "hydrogen station" to develop hydrogen, then it is liquified, and delivered via hydrogen pumps, much like the way you pump gas, but with a slightly different hookup. That, in my opinion, is a better means of distribution as it completely eliminates the need for transport, pipes, large factories, and so forth.
Kudos to the guy or gal who did this. I personally don't consider anything under 12 inches to be worthwhile, but now I'll think twice about ruling-out the potential of such small telescopes.
I disagree. The reactor was safe...as long as it was used within its parameters. Anything that is not used within its parameters has the potential to be deadly. The fact that it could also be used for weapons is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The real point is that a human did something he/she was not supposed to do at that time, regardless of all other factors. And you can be sure that humans don't fail because? This was a case that clearly demonstrated that. Humans are always the ones making mistakes. You could simply have backup computers to prevent the failure of one computer from causing any problem for the whole. As I suggested, you could always have humans, but they would not have critical functions under their control, but would only serve as observational eyes and ears, in addition to the computer.
My god, what is happening here?! The summary states the name of the person who submitted it is Vanessa. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children! :o
Or "fanar," as the "ik" after it implies it is small or cute...or generally along those lines. :)
The bottom line is that this was not caused by an improper design - as it was used for some 30 years before and since the accident, albeit with some later modifications (IIRC) - but due to human error. This is obviously a tech site, so a better solution to nuclear stations would be completely eliminate the human factor. Why can't we have computers monitoring absolutely everything? From gas levels, to water levels, to the state of important components, and so forth. What do the human technicians do at this time that a computer cannot? We can certainly have a human present to monitor all the statistics, but to eliminate all control which would allow such a catastrophe to take place.
I don't consider the loss of life of Chernobyl to be significant in quantity, as compared to war, non-nuclear accidents, disease, famine, et cetera - which is not to say that life lost due to the accident is insiginificant (on the contrary, of course) - but its greatest blow was to the field of Nuclear Energy. As others have pointed out, it is potentially much more cleaner, but the stigma which was created as a result of the accident has had tremendous effect on public opinion. I would wager that more individuals have died pursuing other means of energy production than nuclear, but that hardly matters in the eyes of the uninformed public, politicians, and so forth. Sad, really.
I can't get the image of the ionized blue air out of my mind. It must have been deathly beautiful.
Could you be any more off-topic? I know you are all genetically programmed to hate Microsoft, but many of the larger exploits on Windows were fixed and patches issued ahead of time. The end-result was mostly due to user naivity, who chose not to upgrade.
What a sad way to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. One bomb would have sufficed, but since ending the war was not their only motive, they had to drop two to test their effectiveness. It has to be the darkest moment in American history.