Your side steping my main point so let me clarify "Simply mor ecomplex" = consists of more nerons of a complexity equil to that of the flatworm's nerons the is simply more of them.
The Problem with Goedel's incompleateness problem when it comes to humans is we are ok with things that might be true. Which is not that hard to deal with in computers it's called fuzzy logic and it uses things like (A or B and C) > 50% true which tends to work well when your dealing with compex systems like having 30 temperture sensors in a system if one is giving you bad data you want to ignore it but if 3 say it's to hot and 10 say it's almost to hot then shut down. Think of it this way a fast 486 could moddel every action that a P4 could take it would just waste a lot of time. So computers can work with fuzzy logic it just takes more computation to work though such systems.
There are no examples of problems that humans can solve that a machine could not. The problem is they can just randomly try things and see if it works which can solve most problems over time (In many ways it seems like that's what do when dealing with new problems that they know nothing about.) I know this basicly says theres no soul but there realy is no evedence for this. Yes Billions of nerons are realy complex but there is no point where you have to sit back and say well hmm there is no explination for why that worked out that way.
A while ago a spot was located that when stimulated with an electric current gives the patent the sensation of someone else is in the room. Now this is done by stimulating the neurons on the top of the brain (can't recall exact location) but I can look it up for if you really want me to. There are other cool things like being able to cause there mussels to contract but this is a sensation of someone else in the room vs. say seeing something.
As to humans yea there is not a lot of study's done which dissect live people and trace the path of something through the optic nerve but there is a lot of studies about the same thing done with cats.
PS: Parents are neuroscientists where I am the lowly coder so I can't recall all the details on this stuff but there is not much mystery left as to how the brain operates on the basic levels. What most laypeople forget is there are several things going on at the same time. EX: There are local and global chemical reactions in the brain that effect both the formation of pathways, how easily excited those pathways are, and how they dissolve. Thus things like emotions tend to be hormones that affect the brain rather than say your frontal lobe going into spasm. It's cool because you could watch the blood flow changes as someone gets mad and their frontal lobe shuts down.
PPS: There is a robot who's CPU models a simple flatworm's brain (6 neurons) and it behaves in exactly the same manor as the flatworm. (New scientist -sometime time in collage so 3-7 years ago.) They replaced the chemical sensors with an optical one and the mussels with electric motors but the robot moves toward light in the same way that a flatworm moves toward food. So saying you can't model brain which is simply more complex without stating a reason seems silly.
PPS: There is a robot who's CPU models a simple flatworm's brain (6 neurons) and it behaves in exactly the same manor as the flatworm. (New scientit -somone time in collage so 3-7 years ago.) They replaced the chemical sensors with an optical one and the mussels with electric motors but the robot moves toward light in the same way that a flatworm moves toward food. So saying you can't model brain which is simply more complex without stating a reason seems silly.
I think your overstating the idea that "Bats brains are WIRED for it" if you take a 6month old kid and give them the input from a high end sonar device to work with and their brain will wire it's self to use it. Bat brains are designed to work with sonar but humans have pleanty of nerons to spare to do all the same processing that a bat does so we could use it as well as a bat does.
I CAN picture sonar I have tryed using it and it's not that hard to find out a few things about the room your siting in by making sounds and listening to them. Yes true sonar is based around both great ears and the ability to make vary consistant sounds but at the risk of sounding silly sit in a room, close your eyes, and squeek a few time. After a while you can do stuff like spin around in a char with your eyes closed and then figure our your orentation. Now clearly as a human I suck at using sonar but with a better set of ears and a device to make the squeeks for me I am shure I could get as good if not better at it than your average bat.
PS: Yes sonar is diferent from sight it's closer to touching the room in that you can find out how far away somehting is and you get some sort of texture experence out of it but that does not mean I can't learn how to do it.
Direct neural input would not duplicate the subjective experience of a bat having intrinsic sonar, in which its mind is wired for said experience.
Yes you would still be human but you would still be able to experience walking around a cave and knowing what's going on or knowing what's behind thin walls. With fine tuning you would have access to all the information a bat uses when flying around in the dark. Now how is that different from having intrinsic sonar?
Sorry, but if you explain what's going on and then attach a device which performs the functions of an eye (there are simple versions of this in use today) then yes they can look up at the sky and say 'BLUE'. Yes they are no longer colorblind BUT colorblind means the inability to detect a color so it's a tautology to say colorblind people who stay that way can't experience some color.
Is there any possible way that having all that information, knowing every movement of every particle in the brain, knowing all the patterns that form, that the colorblind person can predict what the experience of 'blue' is like? No!
philosophical demonstration provides no information and is useless in a scientific argument. I believe it was Socrates who once compared the activity of volcanoes to animals shiting. Yea he was being philosophical but he was also wrong.
PS: There are areas of the brain which when stimulated produce sensations in a repeatable pattern. So yes there is evidence that The sensation of Blue IS the activity that's going on.
I think your having trouble with the idea but while you could apply the same idea to "being Drunk" science has little trouble accurate describing the effect and feeling of "being Drunk."
Think of it this way 'redness' would be a pattern of information in the brain. That's what it is if you want to look at why you just find the receptors in the eye that notice Red and follow why that photon translates to that pattern. "Anger" relates to a chemical release inside the brain that would show up on your EEG as a change in the pattern of activity. Now if you could know that the "Anger" chemicals where released in the brain based on it's activity how is that different from looking at someone's activity and noticing there Angry? The EEG would not explain the activity but if you understood the mechanism you could use the EEG as you any sensor. While I don't need to know how a carbon monoxide sensor works to use it someone needed to understand what's going on to design and build it. So your doctor may need to look at the manual to explain what's going on, but there is noting preventing the total explanation of how anger works and an understanding of all of it's effects from being available.
The sensation of Blue IS the activity that's going on.
When you see "blue" your brain activity and someone else brain activity may or may not be closely related but you can compare notes and say my 73bATB = your ^&BAF. It's like looking at a data I don't care if it's in RAM or on the HDD it's still the same data it's the pattern of information in context that's important not the physical representation of that data.
The words blue, Blue, bLue, BLUE, bluE, BluE, and bLuE are the same once you ignore what's representing them. So the fact everyone's brain's used slightly different wiring even when dealing with the same information adds little. At some point memories are really just linkages of sensations. So with enough information you can really know everything that's associated with thinking about 'Blue" or "bLue". Blue = this pattern of neuron activity which set's off these memory's.
How about this build a sensor on your forehead that uses sonar and then replaces the touch receptors in your arm with the out put of this process. Given a little while your going to start using SONAR to see with to the point where you're not going to need to have your eyes open to see.
One of the coolest experiments you can do is to invert the image your eyes see after a while you start to think of that as normal and when you take that away things look upside down for a while. At some point it all comes down to neuron impulses so with a good interface you can see into the inferred just fine ditto for sonar.
I don't see the problem I can look at a chessboard and say checkmate or think about a chessboard and say checkmate. The value of a state inside our mind does not change just because it left our mind.
I mean let's say we have a mouse that is simulated inside a PC and your mapping it's mind and "know" it's frightened, you see it act frightened. Now how would this be different from a "real" mouse that was in the same state? If you could map its mind and see the same thing does this somehow change anything?
How a bat "sees" with just sonar and how it can be explained by physics are very different.
Ok, I will bite how so? I mean physics explains how we can "see" just fine and it can make CCD to do the same ting, ditto for sonar. There are a lot of complex interactions after a photon strikes an eye, but there are some great study's on cat's that show just how this process works.
The quality of networking code in most games sucks. I have not messed around with quake world but 5% packet loss still killed most games I tested. In a FPS with a low player count it's easy to make really robust networking code but with games like starcraft and MMORPGS the amount of data that needs to be updated to let you keep playing makes really robust networking code much harder.
0.1% packet would be extremely high for most players these days. Once you get past simple modems other things start to become more important. Take EQ, it is over 5 years old and has horrible networking code but people still play it. I think most of them think all these networking bugs are there fault because if other people can get it to work then it's there problem which is why they don't really complain much.
Anyway, it's funny the horrible networking code seems to have improved the quality of most networks. I guess most people feel it's easer to try and have "perfect" networks than it is to pay for high quality networking code.
As a gamer I must say it's not the minimum ping time that makes a difference but the maximum av ping time. I don't care if 1/2 the packets get there in 25ms if 5% of the time they're timing out then most games are not playable.
As most games are fairly low bandwidth there is little advantage to going past 100kb/s but cutting 100kb/s out of a 786kb pipe shared with 3 people can take a 40-120ms ping and drop it into a 42- 60ms ping. Now if your not sharing your pipe with anyone then it's not a big deal but if you want to let people use bit torrent while getting a good av ping time then traffic shaping really helps out.
Yes, it reduces your total bandwidth a little and adds a little overhead, which is not always needed, but if it means you can leave BT on 24/7 while your roommates are AIMing and surfing the web then it's a net win.
IF the government taxes my income and gives it to other people then it's spending money. Hell, it's the closest thing to a flat tax we have 16% of all money earned by people makeing less than ~80k and 16% of ~80k for everyone else...
And you thought we had a progressive tax system. Hell, the only reason why it's failing is the net income of people making less than 80k is going DOWN.
Unless your one of those people who compares a 200billion$ manned mission to a 200million unmanned mission then sending people to mars is going to be worth less than spending the same cash and sending lots of robots. First off it's a planet aka a large place so it's better to send robots to 1000 places than send humans to study one real well. Second with robots if something goes wrong then you send another one with humans you either send replacement parts that might not be needed or have everyone dies or you can't do good science because you don't have interment x. Besides, spending billions on R&D for robot's gives us better robot's spending billions to send food and water to mares teaches us nothing.
Ok, now if you wanted to send say a 1000 people to live there for 30 years and setup shop so we could send millions of people to live there well that would be one thing but as long as it's a set up shop for a year and go home it's a waste of time IMO.
No it would have the same escape velocity that earth does.
Umm, No.
If your standing on the earth and toss a ball up at 10mph then it's going to go up a little then fall down. Escape velocty is the speed at which you could toss a ball up and it would not fall down. It is dependent on the Mass of the object your next to and the distance your standing from it.
Basicly, Gravity = G *m1 * m2 / (r^2) Now for object's in the shape of a sphere the force of gravity on there surface act's the same as if there was a tiny point mass of the same size at there center. Asumeing a few minor point's like the fact that the density needs to remain constant for each layer of a fixed distance from the center AKA it can be hollow aslong as it's radialy semetric around the center.
So if your 10,000 miles from the center of mass and you want to a point with 1/4 the force you need to go 10,000 miles further from the center of mass you need to overcome a force that's droping as the square of the distance. The same as with any object. However, if you where at a point such that your under 1g acceleration from the sun and wanted to get to 1/4g acceleration you would need to travel further so you would need to start with a larger velocity to hit that point. As excape velocity is the limit of the velocity you need to reach a point at it get's infinatly far from the mass it's larger for larger objects if your starting at the same force of acceleration.
PS: I can try to clear this up some more but it's going to take even more math.
loose the private keys every few months... i mean make sure they are gone for good How?
Ok yea I understand the idea, but my point was the people administering the system are the most likely people to try to break into your system. One of the most basic tenents of security is the idea that once a person leaves they should be unable to break back in, but with your system anyone about to be fired could just keep a copy of any key or key's and there would be no way to stop them. (You could make it hard but you need to keep the key around in some form so that you can keep using it and if it's somewhere then people can find what it is.)
You would also need to build a cryto system that can take an atackes using hardware and software that's built 20 years from now. So atleast 10,000, ~2^(20*12/18) times faster if not 1,000,000,000,000, ~2^(20*2), times faster.
PS: Some things like GPU's got 2x as fast every 6 months, by combining better hardware with better hardware design. So some hardware based cracking system might keep geting faster at that rate.
The question isn't "Can we put so much mass within a small enough area that light would not be able to escape?", because that's obvious. Just keep piling it on until you get to a mass and radius so large the escape velocity of the mass you've created exceeds the speed of light.
Why does the light traveling from our sun to us travel slower than the light generated here at home? I mean it had to go up a gravity well so that must slow it down right...
If you took something the size of the sun and made it out of low density material then you could end up with a planet where you would could walk around the surface at 1g but it would have a much higher escape velocity than the earth does. I don't know what would happen with an ever larger body I don't think the escape velocity would ever reach C it would just approach it. Now clearly the event horizon idea represents a transition to the point where light can't escape but I can't recall what it would be based on.
So, now all I need to update a 15year old file is to bribe one of the record keepers and I can update as much as I want and nobody can find out. The advantage to paper is it's a easer to find out if it's been messed and it's both difficult and expensive to make a good fake. I have no problem with adding layers to security but saying using paper is worthless / not needed is a little silly.
I think an all knowing god that can see all time would work with people as a sculptor works with clay they shape what's going on by looking at the whole shape not just the local part there working with. AKA God world think thoughts like "If I do nothing It would look like this but if I set this on fire at this point in his life it's going to look like this..." his actions are not limited by time but he like the sculptor can be aware of time without being limited by it. It would be like a composer writing a symphony as long as it's still in his head it's all "now" then he set's down with paper works it though to what he want's and then has people to perform the play.
The odd part comes in where "god' could think about something so completely that it's effectively happening just as a grand master might play a game of chess in his head there's no difference between him playing it in his head and moving peaces around on a board.
Why would you have a problem with this? I mean shure you could to bad things to a brain in a jar but ditto to somone in a cage. So unless your cousing harm what's the problem?
But he said even a deadline of your choosing the problem with software is if your building something 100's of times more complex than the average building on foundations that are not stable.
A friend of mine developes imbeded apps a few years he was talking about a project he was working on where he needed to keep track of the flow of a flow and respond with the totals on receving the queries. Well he this task had been given to somone else who built such a program put it into the field but it was haveing a 2% failure rate. Well now know's what's going on the systems memory is geting corruped over time so now he has to write something as close to self healing software as he can all the time keeping it under 386bites! of memory on a chip running at like 32KiloHz. Well he got something as close as he thouht was posible and it met the customer's needs falure rate droped to less than 1 in 10,000 and many of those notieded that they where corruped. But at the same time if he needed to he could have increased the CPU speed but it would have increased the cost's so he has to try and see if he can get it to work before saying what system he needed to have it run on. So it's volitile memory Including the memory that the program resides while it's running vague requierments as to how good "good enough" is and a prefred but not required system to run the thing on. Now compared with a bridge where the user's have some idea what his needs are and your given safty margins when building it aka 25% stronger than it needs vs bleeding edge can this work any faster / uses less memory. Pluss with building bridges the design is such a limited aspect of the overall project that most of the time there given as much time as they need to finigh the design afterall when the design is less than 2% of the net cost's most people are willing to get it right. We have also been building bridges for 1000's of years and they still fall down.
A long time ago a law was passed where by if a house that you built falls and kills the owner then your put to death. That is what created the idea that builders are responsible for building systems that work where with software most people want it as cheep as they can get it and are willing to work with buggy code so they end up with buggy code.
PS: If you want error checking on this post pay me and I will do so untill then you get what you pay for.
Hmm, interesting. The fact that it's 7.5kg per Kilometer seems like there fudging the numbers as they could save a lot of Wight but cutting the bottom 5000 km to less than 7.5kg if that where sufficient to lift the 15000kg of weight for that length of cable plus there 13tun load + there ship with a 7.5kg / km cable above that. However, if they can lift 100tuns+ on a 1000km cable at 0.0075kg per meter then it would be fairly safe.
PS: Watch out "we are selling stock on a limited basis in our parent company, LiftPort Group" seems a little fishy to me.
If "Space itself is indeed expanding at a universal rate per (for example) parsec." then I would have to agree with you. I had thought that space was expanding at a fixed rate relitive to exiting object's / locations not distance.
I guess that means that at some point we would be unable to travel to anything else in the "local group" o well it's been a while sence I looked into this stuff. Anyway, thanks for the info.
Knowing how to write a requirement is a skill unto it's self. Instead of trying to get customers / managers to learn how to think clearly you need to have developers there so you can give people feedback as there working though what they want done. One of the most basic problems most software companies have is they can't define which requirements are important.
As a basic example users want to have user interfaces that are easy on the eyes. Now you could define how the users can select the exact fount, spacing, and color for everything they interact with or you can have an informal requirement that all text is easily legible and you can change the fount size as needed. Both of these solve the same basic problem but having an increase / decrease font size option under the options menu is a lot easer to implement and use than a system for selecting font and color for each menu.
Slashdot Mirror
Your side steping my main point so let me clarify "Simply mor ecomplex" = consists of more nerons of a complexity equil to that of the flatworm's nerons the is simply more of them.
The Problem with Goedel's incompleateness problem when it comes to humans is we are ok with things that might be true. Which is not that hard to deal with in computers it's called fuzzy logic and it uses things like (A or B and C) > 50% true which tends to work well when your dealing with compex systems like having 30 temperture sensors in a system if one is giving you bad data you want to ignore it but if 3 say it's to hot and 10 say it's almost to hot then shut down. Think of it this way a fast 486 could moddel every action that a P4 could take it would just waste a lot of time. So computers can work with fuzzy logic it just takes more computation to work though such systems.
There are no examples of problems that humans can solve that a machine could not. The problem is they can just randomly try things and see if it works which can solve most problems over time (In many ways it seems like that's what do when dealing with new problems that they know nothing about.) I know this basicly says theres no soul but there realy is no evedence for this. Yes Billions of nerons are realy complex but there is no point where you have to sit back and say well hmm there is no explination for why that worked out that way.
A while ago a spot was located that when stimulated with an electric current gives the patent the sensation of someone else is in the room. Now this is done by stimulating the neurons on the top of the brain (can't recall exact location) but I can look it up for if you really want me to. There are other cool things like being able to cause there mussels to contract but this is a sensation of someone else in the room vs. say seeing something.
As to humans yea there is not a lot of study's done which dissect live people and trace the path of something through the optic nerve but there is a lot of studies about the same thing done with cats.
PS: Parents are neuroscientists where I am the lowly coder so I can't recall all the details on this stuff but there is not much mystery left as to how the brain operates on the basic levels. What most laypeople forget is there are several things going on at the same time. EX: There are local and global chemical reactions in the brain that effect both the formation of pathways, how easily excited those pathways are, and how they dissolve. Thus things like emotions tend to be hormones that affect the brain rather than say your frontal lobe going into spasm. It's cool because you could watch the blood flow changes as someone gets mad and their frontal lobe shuts down.
PPS: There is a robot who's CPU models a simple flatworm's brain (6 neurons) and it behaves in exactly the same manor as the flatworm. (New scientist -sometime time in collage so 3-7 years ago.) They replaced the chemical sensors with an optical one and the mussels with electric motors but the robot moves toward light in the same way that a flatworm moves toward food. So saying you can't model brain which is simply more complex without stating a reason seems silly.
PPS: There is a robot who's CPU models a simple flatworm's brain (6 neurons) and it behaves in exactly the same manor as the flatworm. (New scientit -somone time in collage so 3-7 years ago.) They replaced the chemical sensors with an optical one and the mussels with electric motors but the robot moves toward light in the same way that a flatworm moves toward food. So saying you can't model brain which is simply more complex without stating a reason seems silly.
I think your overstating the idea that "Bats brains are WIRED for it" if you take a 6month old kid and give them the input from a high end sonar device to work with and their brain will wire it's self to use it. Bat brains are designed to work with sonar but humans have pleanty of nerons to spare to do all the same processing that a bat does so we could use it as well as a bat does.
I CAN picture sonar I have tryed using it and it's not that hard to find out a few things about the room your siting in by making sounds and listening to them. Yes true sonar is based around both great ears and the ability to make vary consistant sounds but at the risk of sounding silly sit in a room, close your eyes, and squeek a few time. After a while you can do stuff like spin around in a char with your eyes closed and then figure our your orentation. Now clearly as a human I suck at using sonar but with a better set of ears and a device to make the squeeks for me I am shure I could get as good if not better at it than your average bat.
PS: Yes sonar is diferent from sight it's closer to touching the room in that you can find out how far away somehting is and you get some sort of texture experence out of it but that does not mean I can't learn how to do it.
Direct neural input would not duplicate the subjective experience of a bat having intrinsic sonar, in which its mind is wired for said experience.
Yes you would still be human but you would still be able to experience walking around a cave and knowing what's going on or knowing what's behind thin walls. With fine tuning you would have access to all the information a bat uses when flying around in the dark. Now how is that different from having intrinsic sonar?
Sorry, but if you explain what's going on and then attach a device which performs the functions of an eye (there are simple versions of this in use today) then yes they can look up at the sky and say 'BLUE'. Yes they are no longer colorblind BUT colorblind means the inability to detect a color so it's a tautology to say colorblind people who stay that way can't experience some color.
Is there any possible way that having all that information, knowing every movement of every particle in the brain, knowing all the patterns that form, that the colorblind person can predict what the experience of 'blue' is like? No!
philosophical demonstration provides no information and is useless in a scientific argument. I believe it was Socrates who once compared the activity of volcanoes to animals shiting. Yea he was being philosophical but he was also wrong.
PS: There are areas of the brain which when stimulated produce sensations in a repeatable pattern. So yes there is evidence that The sensation of Blue IS the activity that's going on.
I think your having trouble with the idea but while you could apply the same idea to "being Drunk" science has little trouble accurate describing the effect and feeling of "being Drunk."
Think of it this way 'redness' would be a pattern of information in the brain. That's what it is if you want to look at why you just find the receptors in the eye that notice Red and follow why that photon translates to that pattern. "Anger" relates to a chemical release inside the brain that would show up on your EEG as a change in the pattern of activity. Now if you could know that the "Anger" chemicals where released in the brain based on it's activity how is that different from looking at someone's activity and noticing there Angry? The EEG would not explain the activity but if you understood the mechanism you could use the EEG as you any sensor. While I don't need to know how a carbon monoxide sensor works to use it someone needed to understand what's going on to design and build it. So your doctor may need to look at the manual to explain what's going on, but there is noting preventing the total explanation of how anger works and an understanding of all of it's effects from being available.
The sensation of Blue IS the activity that's going on.
When you see "blue" your brain activity and someone else brain activity may or may not be closely related but you can compare notes and say my 73bATB = your ^&BAF. It's like looking at a data I don't care if it's in RAM or on the HDD it's still the same data it's the pattern of information in context that's important not the physical representation of that data.
The words blue, Blue, bLue, BLUE, bluE, BluE, and bLuE are the same once you ignore what's representing them. So the fact everyone's brain's used slightly different wiring even when dealing with the same information adds little. At some point memories are really just linkages of sensations. So with enough information you can really know everything that's associated with thinking about 'Blue" or "bLue". Blue = this pattern of neuron activity which set's off these memory's.
How about this build a sensor on your forehead that uses sonar and then replaces the touch receptors in your arm with the out put of this process. Given a little while your going to start using SONAR to see with to the point where you're not going to need to have your eyes open to see.
One of the coolest experiments you can do is to invert the image your eyes see after a while you start to think of that as normal and when you take that away things look upside down for a while. At some point it all comes down to neuron impulses so with a good interface you can see into the inferred just fine ditto for sonar.
I don't see the problem I can look at a chessboard and say checkmate or think about a chessboard and say checkmate. The value of a state inside our mind does not change just because it left our mind.
I mean let's say we have a mouse that is simulated inside a PC and your mapping it's mind and "know" it's frightened, you see it act frightened. Now how would this be different from a "real" mouse that was in the same state? If you could map its mind and see the same thing does this somehow change anything?
How a bat "sees" with just sonar and how it can be explained by physics are very different.
Ok, I will bite how so? I mean physics explains how we can "see" just fine and it can make CCD to do the same ting, ditto for sonar. There are a lot of complex interactions after a photon strikes an eye, but there are some great study's on cat's that show just how this process works.
I don't know who I find funnier the guy to posted that or the person who moderated it Insightful.
Anyway, if you can say (Y/N) to "I like blue." then you can "know thyself."
The quality of networking code in most games sucks. I have not messed around with quake world but 5% packet loss still killed most games I tested. In a FPS with a low player count it's easy to make really robust networking code but with games like starcraft and MMORPGS the amount of data that needs to be updated to let you keep playing makes really robust networking code much harder.
0.1% packet would be extremely high for most players these days. Once you get past simple modems other things start to become more important. Take EQ, it is over 5 years old and has horrible networking code but people still play it. I think most of them think all these networking bugs are there fault because if other people can get it to work then it's there problem which is why they don't really complain much.
Anyway, it's funny the horrible networking code seems to have improved the quality of most networks. I guess most people feel it's easer to try and have "perfect" networks than it is to pay for high quality networking code.
As a gamer I must say it's not the minimum ping time that makes a difference but the maximum av ping time. I don't care if 1/2 the packets get there in 25ms if 5% of the time they're timing out then most games are not playable.
As most games are fairly low bandwidth there is little advantage to going past 100kb/s but cutting 100kb/s out of a 786kb pipe shared with 3 people can take a 40-120ms ping and drop it into a 42- 60ms ping. Now if your not sharing your pipe with anyone then it's not a big deal but if you want to let people use bit torrent while getting a good av ping time then traffic shaping really helps out.
Yes, it reduces your total bandwidth a little and adds a little overhead, which is not always needed, but if it means you can leave BT on 24/7 while your roommates are AIMing and surfing the web then it's a net win.
Social Security is still goverment spending.
IF the government taxes my income and gives it to other people then it's spending money. Hell, it's the closest thing to a flat tax we have 16% of all money earned by people makeing less than ~80k and 16% of ~80k for everyone else...
And you thought we had a progressive tax system. Hell, the only reason why it's failing is the net income of people making less than 80k is going DOWN.
Unless your one of those people who compares a 200billion$ manned mission to a 200million unmanned mission then sending people to mars is going to be worth less than spending the same cash and sending lots of robots. First off it's a planet aka a large place so it's better to send robots to 1000 places than send humans to study one real well. Second with robots if something goes wrong then you send another one with humans you either send replacement parts that might not be needed or have everyone dies or you can't do good science because you don't have interment x. Besides, spending billions on R&D for robot's gives us better robot's spending billions to send food and water to mares teaches us nothing.
Ok, now if you wanted to send say a 1000 people to live there for 30 years and setup shop so we could send millions of people to live there well that would be one thing but as long as it's a set up shop for a year and go home it's a waste of time IMO.
No it would have the same escape velocity that earth does.
Umm, No.
If your standing on the earth and toss a ball up at 10mph then it's going to go up a little then fall down. Escape velocty is the speed at which you could toss a ball up and it would not fall down. It is dependent on the Mass of the object your next to and the distance your standing from it.
Basicly, Gravity = G *m1 * m2 / (r^2) Now for object's in the shape of a sphere the force of gravity on there surface act's the same as if there was a tiny point mass of the same size at there center. Asumeing a few minor point's like the fact that the density needs to remain constant for each layer of a fixed distance from the center AKA it can be hollow aslong as it's radialy semetric around the center.
So if your 10,000 miles from the center of mass and you want to a point with 1/4 the force you need to go 10,000 miles further from the center of mass you need to overcome a force that's droping as the square of the distance. The same as with any object. However, if you where at a point such that your under 1g acceleration from the sun and wanted to get to 1/4g acceleration you would need to travel further so you would need to start with a larger velocity to hit that point. As excape velocity is the limit of the velocity you need to reach a point at it get's infinatly far from the mass it's larger for larger objects if your starting at the same force of acceleration.
PS: I can try to clear this up some more but it's going to take even more math.
loose the private keys every few months... i mean make sure they are gone for good How?
Ok yea I understand the idea, but my point was the people administering the system are the most likely people to try to break into your system. One of the most basic tenents of security is the idea that once a person leaves they should be unable to break back in, but with your system anyone about to be fired could just keep a copy of any key or key's and there would be no way to stop them. (You could make it hard but you need to keep the key around in some form so that you can keep using it and if it's somewhere then people can find what it is.)
You would also need to build a cryto system that can take an atackes using hardware and software that's built 20 years from now. So atleast 10,000, ~2^(20*12/18) times faster if not 1,000,000,000,000, ~2^(20*2), times faster.
PS: Some things like GPU's got 2x as fast every 6 months, by combining better hardware with better hardware design. So some hardware based cracking system might keep geting faster at that rate.
The question isn't "Can we put so much mass within a small enough area that light would not be able to escape?", because that's obvious. Just keep piling it on until you get to a mass and radius so large the escape velocity of the mass you've created exceeds the speed of light.
Why does the light traveling from our sun to us travel slower than the light generated here at home? I mean it had to go up a gravity well so that must slow it down right...
If you took something the size of the sun and made it out of low density material then you could end up with a planet where you would could walk around the surface at 1g but it would have a much higher escape velocity than the earth does. I don't know what would happen with an ever larger body I don't think the escape velocity would ever reach C it would just approach it. Now clearly the event horizon idea represents a transition to the point where light can't escape but I can't recall what it would be based on.
Hmm, so who would keep the private key's?
So, now all I need to update a 15year old file is to bribe one of the record keepers and I can update as much as I want and nobody can find out. The advantage to paper is it's a easer to find out if it's been messed and it's both difficult and expensive to make a good fake. I have no problem with adding layers to security but saying using paper is worthless / not needed is a little silly.
I think an all knowing god that can see all time would work with people as a sculptor works with clay they shape what's going on by looking at the whole shape not just the local part there working with. AKA God world think thoughts like "If I do nothing It would look like this but if I set this on fire at this point in his life it's going to look like this..." his actions are not limited by time but he like the sculptor can be aware of time without being limited by it. It would be like a composer writing a symphony as long as it's still in his head it's all "now" then he set's down with paper works it though to what he want's and then has people to perform the play.
The odd part comes in where "god' could think about something so completely that it's effectively happening just as a grand master might play a game of chess in his head there's no difference between him playing it in his head and moving peaces around on a board.
Why would you have a problem with this? I mean shure you could to bad things to a brain in a jar but ditto to somone in a cage. So unless your cousing harm what's the problem?
But he said even a deadline of your choosing the problem with software is if your building something 100's of times more complex than the average building on foundations that are not stable.
A friend of mine developes imbeded apps a few years he was talking about a project he was working on where he needed to keep track of the flow of a flow and respond with the totals on receving the queries. Well he this task had been given to somone else who built such a program put it into the field but it was haveing a 2% failure rate. Well now know's what's going on the systems memory is geting corruped over time so now he has to write something as close to self healing software as he can all the time keeping it under 386bites! of memory on a chip running at like 32KiloHz. Well he got something as close as he thouht was posible and it met the customer's needs falure rate droped to less than 1 in 10,000 and many of those notieded that they where corruped. But at the same time if he needed to he could have increased the CPU speed but it would have increased the cost's so he has to try and see if he can get it to work before saying what system he needed to have it run on. So it's volitile memory Including the memory that the program resides while it's running vague requierments as to how good "good enough" is and a prefred but not required system to run the thing on. Now compared with a bridge where the user's have some idea what his needs are and your given safty margins when building it aka 25% stronger than it needs vs bleeding edge can this work any faster / uses less memory. Pluss with building bridges the design is such a limited aspect of the overall project that most of the time there given as much time as they need to finigh the design afterall when the design is less than 2% of the net cost's most people are willing to get it right. We have also been building bridges for 1000's of years and they still fall down.
A long time ago a law was passed where by if a house that you built falls and kills the owner then your put to death. That is what created the idea that builders are responsible for building systems that work where with software most people want it as cheep as they can get it and are willing to work with buggy code so they end up with buggy code.
PS: If you want error checking on this post pay me and I will do so untill then you get what you pay for.
Hmm, interesting. The fact that it's 7.5kg per Kilometer seems like there fudging the numbers as they could save a lot of Wight but cutting the bottom 5000 km to less than 7.5kg if that where sufficient to lift the 15000kg of weight for that length of cable plus there 13tun load + there ship with a 7.5kg / km cable above that. However, if they can lift 100tuns+ on a 1000km cable at 0.0075kg per meter then it would be fairly safe.
PS: Watch out "we are selling stock on a limited basis in our parent company, LiftPort Group" seems a little fishy to me.
If "Space itself is indeed expanding at a universal rate per (for example) parsec." then I would have to agree with you. I had thought that space was expanding at a fixed rate relitive to exiting object's / locations not distance.
I guess that means that at some point we would be unable to travel to anything else in the "local group" o well it's been a while sence I looked into this stuff. Anyway, thanks for the info.
Knowing how to write a requirement is a skill unto it's self. Instead of trying to get customers / managers to learn how to think clearly you need to have developers there so you can give people feedback as there working though what they want done. One of the most basic problems most software companies have is they can't define which requirements are important.
As a basic example users want to have user interfaces that are easy on the eyes. Now you could define how the users can select the exact fount, spacing, and color for everything they interact with or you can have an informal requirement that all text is easily legible and you can change the fount size as needed. Both of these solve the same basic problem but having an increase / decrease font size option under the options menu is a lot easer to implement and use than a system for selecting font and color for each menu.