> The assumption is that ETI would use radio
> because the laws of physics prohibit anything
> faster, but if that's true, why would they even
> bother?
Well, we have been sending RF garbage into space since Der Fuhrer hosted the Olympics in 193X, regardless whether or not it was feasible to be sending people to Alpha Centauri or it was too far away to really talk to Little Green Men. Bets are that ETI has been doing the same thing as well.
> William of Ockham is getting pretty pissed at
> all of you changing his name. And don't present
> his razor as an explanation just because
> you saw Contact. 9 people out of 10 take the
> razor totally out of context.
A) William of Ockham is dead, so he isn't really feeling much of anything right now (assuming AFTERLIFE=FALSE)
B) Despite the misprint of name, he should be tickled pink that someone else's phrase has been attributed to him for the last X hundred years.
C) Occam's Razor is so generalized that it is applicable in *every* context. Ockham used it as a law of economy, though.
D) FINE! I now declare HENCEFORTH that DOOMHAVEN'S RAZOR is "The simplest or most obvious answer is generally the correct one", and that any other representation of the above phrase as Occam's, Ockham's, Tom's, Dick's, Joe, or any OTHER person's razor is both wrong and strictly prohibited by law.
Though you can calculate luminiousity from mass (making some really ugly assumptions), and from there, calculate temperature (Um, something like L=4*PI*(R^2)*SOME_CONSTANT*T^4), and from there, calculate wavelength. Right?
Calculation is left as an exercise for the reader.
Maybe we don't need to look at the planetary models to correct the definition of a planet; maybe we should just scrap them entirely and go with physics completely.
I mean, Jupiter is a planet, right? Maybe. It actually radiates a ton of infrared radiation, due to friction as it's atmosphere slowly compresses (one millimeter a year, or so I am told). So, what is Jupiter *now*?
I thought I had a nice equation that linked mass and wavelength for a nice blackbody radiator, but I don't (grrr). I have a good one relating Temp and wavelength, but not mass. Damn astrophysics!
No, I mean "Occam's Razor". Quoting from your source:
"also spelled OCCAM'S RAZOR"
That's good enough for me.
> is a principle stated by William of Ockham,
> that entities are not to be multiplied beyond
> necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter
> necessitatem).
The same source gives this as the definitive definition:
"Plurality should not be posited without necessity."
To me, today, Occam's Razor is generally quoted as, "The simplest or most obvious answer is generally the correct one".
The reason it's my sig is simple: I overlook the obvious. I never see the simple answer. And thus, I end up wasting a lot of time, effort, and probably health "cutting myself" on "Occam's Razor".
Though I think I will/might switch my sig to this one:
"Reality cures optimism" - DoomHaven, unless someone has prior art on it. Of course, the inverse works just great for someone who is continuously cheery, and thus diametrically opposed, to me.
That is nifty sig.
Re:Personal Helicopter?
on
What is 'IT'?
·
· Score: 1
A quick metal frame, a couple small electric engines, and lightweight batteries. Judging by his work, probably a relatively good gyro-balancing system. Throw in economics of scale, and you could do it for $2000.
Re:A Mode of Transportation
on
What is 'IT'?
·
· Score: 2
>have a big, broad impact not only on social >institutions
Like rush-hour traffic, teenage mating rituals, and car worship?
>but some billion-dollar old-line companies.
Like Ford, GMC, Dodge, Honda, Volkswagen?
> profoundly affect our environment and the way
> people live worldwide.
NO MORE ROADS! And if we need to go overland, we can just use that off-road wheelchair! Oh, we are assuming this vehicle is cleaner than a car.
Re:Personal Helicopter?
on
What is 'IT'?
·
· Score: 2
Yep, it fits on so many levels:
1) Is it legal? This would have to be treated as an personal vehicle, but not necessary a aircraft, so you would need additional laws for "driver's" licenses, vehicle registration, speed/ceiling limits, safe flying zones, and so on and so on.
2) Retrofitting cities. You would need a completely different infrastructure to support these; hangars/landing pads, traffic paths or throughways marked. This is assuming, of course, that this vehicle is gas-powered; we might need a whole new power/fuel distribution system to keep this things of the air.
3) Dirty, noisy, etc. As one other poster said, "that's either cars or dogs". And we already have electronic dogs.
4) Mega corp interference. Personal helicopters are going to make this guy RICH because I want one!
5) Building them with a screwdriver/hex wrench/carry it in. It this guy can build a wheelchair that climbs stairs (which would need a very high power-to-mass ratio to haul someone's ass up stairs), then I bet he could apply that kind of power-to-mass ratio to a personal chopper. Building it simply and quickly means it probably is a sturdy pre-fab; not unlike the new scooters/mopeds that are/were the rage.
> A 75GB hard disk would only hold around 30
> minutes of the video, according to company
> officials, making the trading of HD content
> over the Internet impossible...
So all one yahoo has to do is to kludge together a compressor from D-VHS to MPEG/AVI/MOV/ASX and we are right back to were we started.
Admittedly, the hardware requirements would be impressive to pull it off, but one decidated person is needed to pull it off. As well, by the time this kind of stuff becomes standard, I will own a 2GHz computer with 200 GB of storage anyways.
No, it doesn't have pastel colored buttons, they have primary/secondary colored buttons. Pastels are colours such as pink, mint, mauve, vs primary/secondary colours such as red, green, and purple. Consider a pastel to be a primary/secondary colour that is heavily tinted (mixed with white; contrast with "shaded", that is, mixed with black).
Large radar, because you would never build an expansion base with a small radar and you would never keep the small radar for any longer than the first month.
I agree with you about those small UFOs leaving you in the dust, but that was rarely a problem once I had a working decoder; my tech tree made damn sure I had plasma weapons for my interceptors *way before* I had a decoder.
was that it was a base for X-Com's UFO defense. It's a shame that the alien containment, the plasma defenses, and the PSI labs were removed, but at least they left the laboratories, the barracks, and the hangars.
So, where is the undersea X-Com facility? Note to self: never board a ship named "Hyperion".
I don't think it *sucks*, per se, but I don't think it's worth a flame war over. However, I urge you to try Coffee Crisp and Caramilk and real Canadian Smarties.
> I only drink microbrews
When I find an American microbrewery that makes mead, and much less does it better than the microbrewery in Canada, I might change my mind. I will admit to finding a really good coffee stout in the USA, and not in Canada, yet. However, in terms of macrobrewery beer, Canada is better than the US.
Don't worry about popularizing Dion. She's popular here, too, and then some nut will always go: "And she's Canadian, too!" At least you recognize that it is a problem; I commend you for that!
> Canadians are just as likely to spout that
> obnoxious "We're the best country in the world"
> rhetoric as the Americans
True, true. The major difference being that the UN tends to agree with the Canadians rather than the Americans. It's one thing to think that I come from the best country in the world, it's completely different to be told that by the United Nations.
> Apparently if they know you are from America
> you automatically become an "ignorant redneck"
> even if you're from Boston and have a PhD in
> particle physics
See my original fifth point; Americans abroad are disliked. Define "abroad" as "in a foreign country, such as Canada". Most Americans abroad are treated rudely because they are Americans. I am not saying it's warranted, or correct. Just that it is the truth.
> And the chocolate bars sucked.
Okay, now you are just being rude and petty. Canadian chocolate bar companies (Cadbury, for example) make great chocolate bars (Coffee Crisp, Caramilk, Aero, to name a few).
> And the beer wasn't any better than what you can
> get here.
I have my doubts. Canadian beer is generally considered superior to American beer. American beer that I have had (Budweiser) is considered "starter beer" in Canadian, to prepare yourself for "real" (IE. Canadian) beer.
Wolverine was created by an American (Stan Lee?) but set in Canada. Superman was created by a Canadian (want to say Joe Schuster?) but set in the USA. Take your pick.
Not a big RUSH fan, but Canadians also offer Moist, the Tragically Hip, the Watchmen, Bare Naked Ladies, Bush X, and Alanis Morisette.
And yes, you are dumbasses for popularizing Celine Dion.:)
Wrong. Britian entered WWI because it promised the Neterlands that it would defend them in case of invasion. Germany invaded the Netherlands, Britian declared war.
Britian entered WWII because it promised Poland that it would defend them in case of invasion. Germany invaded Poland, Britian declared war.
In neither case was Britian, or British interests attacked. British was honouring its agreements.
As for the Japanese, it was the decision of the allies to concentrate on the Germans first.
Er, John Candy *was* Canadian; just to clarify, the reference is to movie starring Candy called "Canadian Bacon" where a group of Americans try to invade Canada.
Whether or not the Marshall plan worked, a lot of European resented it because they felt that they had to rebuild their countries while America could build itself into a superpower, and that afterwards America used it as token in international power games. However, I agree with you that Canada and the US did do a lot to help Europe rebuild after the war.
Not sure I agree with your point about US presidents spearheading the UN.
MAD has not worked yet. We still have enough nuclear capability to destroy ourselves; while a US-USSR war seems unlikely, we still live under the threat.
Am vaguely familiar with the Lend-Lease Bill, but remember that the US supplied *all* sides during WWI. And loaning munitions is most definitely not the same as sending troops.
I was under the impression that the USA entered WWII in early summer of 1942, right after Pearl Harbor was attacked and not a day before.
Arguably, you have whatever rights the government of your country allow you to have; but that is a semantic battle and probably beside the point.
My point is that between the Constitution and the way that the American government is set up is to limit the power of the federal government. And that is part of reason Americans are more individualistic than Canadians.
> We Americans will try to remember that the next
> time Germany tries to sweep through Europe
Actually, Americans did nothing to prevent the initial taking of Europe during either World War. However, out of respect for the brave Americans who fought and died during both war, I will not belittle the American contributions to either war.
> We know that the ideas of freedom, personal
> liberty, and human rights are merely
> words you banter about, never realizing the
> responsibility they bring.
Canada fought both World Wars from the start, and through the creation of the UN, helped prevent future wars in a peaceable fashion afterwards. America had to be goaded into both when their interests (Luisitania/Zimmerman telegraph for WWI and Pearl Harbor) were explicitly attacked. And then almost sacrificed human survival as a race thanks to the great god Mutually Assured Destruction they worshipped with the USSR afterwards. So don't make me laugh about "realizing the responsibility". The great US of A spent three years of both wars with its big, noble tail tucked bravely between its legs while Britian sacrificed its empire so the world wouldn't be speaking German right now.
I wish I knew more about the Serbian situation, but since I don't, I can't argue or agree with you. However, the minute peacekeepers were called for duty, Canada was there front and centre, and are still there. I know of at least three people (including a classmate from high school and his brother) who served as peacekeepers there.
Sorry for the harsh reply; perhaps it keeps in spirit of the thread? Keep in mind that America didn't enter either war by virtue, and while your actions weren't mere, I won't put any stock in your words.
Slashdot Mirror
> The assumption is that ETI would use radio
> because the laws of physics prohibit anything
> faster, but if that's true, why would they even
> bother?
Well, we have been sending RF garbage into space since Der Fuhrer hosted the Olympics in 193X, regardless whether or not it was feasible to be sending people to Alpha Centauri or it was too far away to really talk to Little Green Men. Bets are that ETI has been doing the same thing as well.
Yes, yes, but:
Luminiousity = f(mass)
Radius = f(mass)
Both of the above assume that the "star" is on the main sequence, and I think they are based on a rough ratios of any other star.
Temperature = f(Radius, Luminiousity)
Juggle around that luminosity equation to solve for temperature.
OR
Temperature = f(f(mass), f(mass))
PeakWavelength = f(Temperature)
OR
PeakWavelength = f(f(f(mass), f(mass)))
Admittedly, it's a ton of hoops, but hey, I still get my equation relating PeakWavelength directly to mass, which is what I wanted to do at the start.
I hope this clears things up; I think we are arguing around the bush and we don't know we agree with each other.
> William of Ockham is getting pretty pissed at
> all of you changing his name. And don't present
> his razor as an explanation just because
> you saw Contact. 9 people out of 10 take the
> razor totally out of context.
A) William of Ockham is dead, so he isn't really feeling much of anything right now (assuming AFTERLIFE=FALSE)
B) Despite the misprint of name, he should be tickled pink that someone else's phrase has been attributed to him for the last X hundred years.
C) Occam's Razor is so generalized that it is applicable in *every* context. Ockham used it as a law of economy, though.
D) FINE! I now declare HENCEFORTH that DOOMHAVEN'S RAZOR is "The simplest or most obvious answer is generally the correct one", and that any other representation of the above phrase as Occam's, Ockham's, Tom's, Dick's, Joe, or any OTHER person's razor is both wrong and strictly prohibited by law.
Yeah, that's the formula I kept seeing:
Wmax*T=2.9877E-3
Though you can calculate luminiousity from mass (making some really ugly assumptions), and from there, calculate temperature (Um, something like L=4*PI*(R^2)*SOME_CONSTANT*T^4), and from there, calculate wavelength. Right?
Calculation is left as an exercise for the reader.
Maybe we don't need to look at the planetary models to correct the definition of a planet; maybe we should just scrap them entirely and go with physics completely.
I mean, Jupiter is a planet, right? Maybe. It actually radiates a ton of infrared radiation, due to friction as it's atmosphere slowly compresses (one millimeter a year, or so I am told). So, what is Jupiter *now*?
I thought I had a nice equation that linked mass and wavelength for a nice blackbody radiator, but I don't (grrr). I have a good one relating Temp and wavelength, but not mass. Damn astrophysics!
> By the way Occam's razor is actually
No, it's actually:
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate", or, in English, "Plurality should not be posited without necessity".
However, the applicable context of the Razor is that, "The simplest or most obvious answer is generally the correct one".
> Don't you mean Ockham's Razor
No, I mean "Occam's Razor". Quoting from your source:
"also spelled OCCAM'S RAZOR"
That's good enough for me.
> is a principle stated by William of Ockham,
> that entities are not to be multiplied beyond
> necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter
> necessitatem).
The same source gives this as the definitive definition:
"Plurality should not be posited without necessity."
To me, today, Occam's Razor is generally quoted as, "The simplest or most obvious answer is generally the correct one".
The reason it's my sig is simple: I overlook the obvious. I never see the simple answer. And thus, I end up wasting a lot of time, effort, and probably health "cutting myself" on "Occam's Razor".
Though I think I will/might switch my sig to this one:
"Reality cures optimism" - DoomHaven, unless someone has prior art on it. Of course, the inverse works just great for someone who is continuously cheery, and thus diametrically opposed, to me.
That is nifty sig.
A quick metal frame, a couple small electric engines, and lightweight batteries. Judging by his work, probably a relatively good gyro-balancing system. Throw in economics of scale, and you could do it for $2000.
>have a big, broad impact not only on social >institutions
Like rush-hour traffic, teenage mating rituals, and car worship?
>but some billion-dollar old-line companies.
Like Ford, GMC, Dodge, Honda, Volkswagen?
> profoundly affect our environment and the way
> people live worldwide.
NO MORE ROADS! And if we need to go overland, we can just use that off-road wheelchair! Oh, we are assuming this vehicle is cleaner than a car.
Yep, it fits on so many levels:
1) Is it legal? This would have to be treated as an personal vehicle, but not necessary a aircraft, so you would need additional laws for "driver's" licenses, vehicle registration, speed/ceiling limits, safe flying zones, and so on and so on.
2) Retrofitting cities. You would need a completely different infrastructure to support these; hangars/landing pads, traffic paths or throughways marked. This is assuming, of course, that this vehicle is gas-powered; we might need a whole new power/fuel distribution system to keep this things of the air.
3) Dirty, noisy, etc. As one other poster said, "that's either cars or dogs". And we already have electronic dogs.
4) Mega corp interference. Personal helicopters are going to make this guy RICH because I want one!
5) Building them with a screwdriver/hex wrench/carry it in. It this guy can build a wheelchair that climbs stairs (which would need a very high power-to-mass ratio to haul someone's ass up stairs), then I bet he could apply that kind of power-to-mass ratio to a personal chopper. Building it simply and quickly means it probably is a sturdy pre-fab; not unlike the new scooters/mopeds that are/were the rage.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
Moderators, *please* do your little "+1 Funny" magic on this one!!!!
> Why design a product around an obsolete chipset?
Feel free to ask Intel and AMD.
> A 75GB hard disk would only hold around 30
> minutes of the video, according to company
> officials, making the trading of HD content
> over the Internet impossible...
So all one yahoo has to do is to kludge together a compressor from D-VHS to MPEG/AVI/MOV/ASX and we are right back to were we started.
Admittedly, the hardware requirements would be impressive to pull it off, but one decidated person is needed to pull it off. As well, by the time this kind of stuff becomes standard, I will own a 2GHz computer with 200 GB of storage anyways.
Nothing is impossible.
No, it doesn't have pastel colored buttons, they have primary/secondary colored buttons. Pastels are colours such as pink, mint, mauve, vs primary/secondary colours such as red, green, and purple. Consider a pastel to be a primary/secondary colour that is heavily tinted (mixed with white; contrast with "shaded", that is, mixed with black).
Understand?
Large radar, because you would never build an expansion base with a small radar and you would never keep the small radar for any longer than the first month.
I agree with you about those small UFOs leaving you in the dust, but that was rarely a problem once I had a working decoder; my tech tree made damn sure I had plasma weapons for my interceptors *way before* I had a decoder.
was that it was a base for X-Com's UFO defense. It's a shame that the alien containment, the plasma defenses, and the PSI labs were removed, but at least they left the laboratories, the barracks, and the hangars.
So, where is the undersea X-Com facility? Note to self: never board a ship named "Hyperion".
> The fact that this stuff was just left there
> most likely means it was obsolete.
Yeah, I bet they have 8*1* foot satellite dishes that rotate on *3* axis, and welded hardwood floors, and....
> I like Wolverine over Superman, he's cooler.
I agree.
> Yes, the Aero bar sucks
I don't think it *sucks*, per se, but I don't think it's worth a flame war over. However, I urge you to try Coffee Crisp and Caramilk and real Canadian Smarties.
> I only drink microbrews
When I find an American microbrewery that makes mead, and much less does it better than the microbrewery in Canada, I might change my mind. I will admit to finding a really good coffee stout in the USA, and not in Canada, yet. However, in terms of macrobrewery beer, Canada is better than the US.
Don't worry about popularizing Dion. She's popular here, too, and then some nut will always go: "And she's Canadian, too!" At least you recognize that it is a problem; I commend you for that!
> Canadians are just as likely to spout that
:)
> obnoxious "We're the best country in the world"
> rhetoric as the Americans
True, true. The major difference being that the UN tends to agree with the Canadians rather than the Americans. It's one thing to think that I come from the best country in the world, it's completely different to be told that by the United Nations.
> Apparently if they know you are from America
> you automatically become an "ignorant redneck"
> even if you're from Boston and have a PhD in
> particle physics
See my original fifth point; Americans abroad are disliked. Define "abroad" as "in a foreign country, such as Canada". Most Americans abroad are treated rudely because they are Americans. I am not saying it's warranted, or correct. Just that it is the truth.
> And the chocolate bars sucked.
Okay, now you are just being rude and petty. Canadian chocolate bar companies (Cadbury, for example) make great chocolate bars (Coffee Crisp, Caramilk, Aero, to name a few).
> And the beer wasn't any better than what you can
> get here.
I have my doubts. Canadian beer is generally considered superior to American beer. American beer that I have had (Budweiser) is considered "starter beer" in Canadian, to prepare yourself for "real" (IE. Canadian) beer.
Wolverine was created by an American (Stan Lee?) but set in Canada. Superman was created by a Canadian (want to say Joe Schuster?) but set in the USA. Take your pick.
Not a big RUSH fan, but Canadians also offer Moist, the Tragically Hip, the Watchmen, Bare Naked Ladies, Bush X, and Alanis Morisette.
And yes, you are dumbasses for popularizing Celine Dion.
Wrong. Britian entered WWI because it promised the Neterlands that it would defend them in case of invasion. Germany invaded the Netherlands, Britian declared war.
Britian entered WWII because it promised Poland that it would defend them in case of invasion. Germany invaded Poland, Britian declared war.
In neither case was Britian, or British interests attacked. British was honouring its agreements.
As for the Japanese, it was the decision of the allies to concentrate on the Germans first.
Er, John Candy *was* Canadian; just to clarify, the reference is to movie starring Candy called "Canadian Bacon" where a group of Americans try to invade Canada.
Whether or not the Marshall plan worked, a lot of European resented it because they felt that they had to rebuild their countries while America could build itself into a superpower, and that afterwards America used it as token in international power games. However, I agree with you that Canada and the US did do a lot to help Europe rebuild after the war.
Not sure I agree with your point about US presidents spearheading the UN.
MAD has not worked yet. We still have enough nuclear capability to destroy ourselves; while a US-USSR war seems unlikely, we still live under the threat.
Am vaguely familiar with the Lend-Lease Bill, but remember that the US supplied *all* sides during WWI. And loaning munitions is most definitely not the same as sending troops.
I was under the impression that the USA entered WWII in early summer of 1942, right after Pearl Harbor was attacked and not a day before.
Arguably, you have whatever rights the government of your country allow you to have; but that is a semantic battle and probably beside the point.
My point is that between the Constitution and the way that the American government is set up is to limit the power of the federal government. And that is part of reason Americans are more individualistic than Canadians.
I didn't mean that it was paradoxical.
> We Americans will try to remember that the next
> time Germany tries to sweep through Europe
Actually, Americans did nothing to prevent the initial taking of Europe during either World War. However, out of respect for the brave Americans who fought and died during both war, I will not belittle the American contributions to either war.
> We know that the ideas of freedom, personal
> liberty, and human rights are merely
> words you banter about, never realizing the
> responsibility they bring.
Canada fought both World Wars from the start, and through the creation of the UN, helped prevent future wars in a peaceable fashion afterwards. America had to be goaded into both when their interests (Luisitania/Zimmerman telegraph for WWI and Pearl Harbor) were explicitly attacked. And then almost sacrificed human survival as a race thanks to the great god Mutually Assured Destruction they worshipped with the USSR afterwards. So don't make me laugh about "realizing the responsibility". The great US of A spent three years of both wars with its big, noble tail tucked bravely between its legs while Britian sacrificed its empire so the world wouldn't be speaking German right now.
I wish I knew more about the Serbian situation, but since I don't, I can't argue or agree with you. However, the minute peacekeepers were called for duty, Canada was there front and centre, and are still there. I know of at least three people (including a classmate from high school and his brother) who served as peacekeepers there.
Sorry for the harsh reply; perhaps it keeps in spirit of the thread? Keep in mind that America didn't enter either war by virtue, and while your actions weren't mere, I won't put any stock in your words.