No. Either the heat generated will be enough to destroy cable material, or it won't be. If it is, the damaged part melts, the cable is cut, and the current ceases, thus stopping the heating. If it isn't, the net resistance of the cable increases as more and more of it falls out of superconducting state, leading to less and less heating, ultimately stopping the spread of the non-superconducting section.
In any case, simply monitoring resistance is sufficient to detect any problems.
They also insist on 'teaching' students outdated technologies based on theoretical knowledge rather than any practical understanding of what is required for a job in the real world.
That's because n university is not a vocational school. It's purpose is to teach theoretical knowledge, not prepare people for a job. And yes, that means that you shouldn't go to one if your goal is a well-paying job outside academica.
University trains scientists; you're looking for engineers.
I realize that's harsh, but creating a life does not entitle it to live..
But I guess sitting in front of the computer and trolling Slashdot anonymously does, eh?
There's a reason we fight to survive, and getting hand-outs (for the long term, not just some short-term disaster) due to unsustainable population areas means we're just making it worse.
I don't fight to survive, and I sincerely doubt you do either, otherwise why would you waste your time here rather than seek some advantage?
Why not just harness all that power the sun sends our way? It is clean, safe, infinite (at least for a few billion years).
It takes a huge area to collect it, which translates to a huge investment, we're in the middle of an economic collapse, and our leaders are only interested in staying in power.
Keep an eye on Libya. In the next few years the EU will be building solar thermal power stations over there.
In the next few years EU, if it still exists, will be too much burdened bailing out one bankupt member state after another to invest in anything. That there's also a rising nationalistic sentiment in the continent doesn't help either, especially since most libyans are muslims.
I think about how sad it is that stupid people with little minds have boxed themselves in to a world where we never went to the Moon.
Don't worry: perhaps China or India will sell you tourist trips to the landing site, once they've finished fighting over which one it belongs to. That should convince your sceptics that you once amounted to something, difficult as it might be to believe it now.
Yeah, you went to the Moon, just like the Vikings went to the America... but neither of you could actually hold to your new holdings, now could you? So, in the end, your achievement is just a footnote in history, and the Moon will belong to whoever will colonize it - and that won't be you.
Largely because there's no need to. There is little if anything the moon of any economic value, and certainly nothing worth the cost of getting there.
There's value in survival, and having humans spread in multiple planets helps ensure that. This planet frequently suffers asteroid strikes, supervolcano eruptions, ice ages, methane eruptions, and possibly other hazards; we must claim other planets if we're to avoid extinction.
Then there's value in growth. We're getting to the point of tapping Earth's resources, at least at our current technology level, so spreading to space is the next logical step. And while Moon might not have plenty of resources by itself, it's an airless low-gravity world in close proximity to Earth, making it the perfect place to launch deep-space asteroid-mining operations and other mission. And Moon does have water, which is useful by itself and as a raw material for fuel or for oxygen, and plenty of solar energy besides.
Finally, there's value in making the universe a more interesting place by colonizing lifeless worlds and converting them into biospheres. Moon is dead rock right now; wouldn't a Moon with thriving metropolises and all the associated life be a far more interesting place?
That's bad enough, and goes a long way towards explaining why they are so willing to tolerate liars and portray it as normal ("eh he's a congressman what do you expect, of course he lies"). Yet it's different from actively, knowingly and deliberately trying to deceive. There's a plan and a purpose combined with an awareness of what one is doing. It's perpetrated by people who are sworn to do what is best for the nation and entrusted with a lot of power with which to do it. There's an element of betrayal here that isn't present in the "little white lies" most people tell.
Going by your own angle, I wonder if that's really true; after all, politicians are still humans and just as capable of human failings as everyone else. Yet the way you are talking of them makes them seem like they were exempt from this, and instead had perfect internal clarity, rather than just deceiving themselves that they are doing the right thing, just like everyone else does according to yourself. It would seem a lot simpler to assume that the people on top are pretty much like the people at the bottom, and simply have more opportunities to act out their flaws (and less support against that from peer pressure). Act the pressure of a position where utmost competence is required on someone who is not really any more competent than Joe Average, and it should come as no surprise that extreme behaviour and megalomania tend to result.
Also, I can't help but notice that this "element of betrayl not present in little white lies" stuff sounds an awful lot like an attempt to excuse said "white" lies. In fact, the very way you use the term "white lie" here seems to differ from the usual usage: you use it for self-deception, while the usual meaning is about lies told in situations where telling the truth would cause unneccessary pain or be otherwise morally wrong (like the classic "Gestapo comes asking if you have Jews hidden in your basement and you do" -scenario).
I've lived many times and many years in Thailand, yet every time there's some slashdot news about internet censorship in there, whole slashdot goes on a knee-jerk reaction telling how the government is being abusive. The truth is that the people want it.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything."
That's the problem with censorship: after it goes to effect, you can't really say anything about what people want, because the information you would need to do so is being manipulated.
Do whatever you want in your own country, but don't go telling other countries how they should be. Let their people choose. If you want to comment about it, do get some actual own experience.
Western countries do have quite a bit of experience with dictatorship and tyranny. On the other hand, China has no experience with freedom and democracy. So I'd say that we have every right to comment on China.
In any case, I think there's a certain period in history where transition from tyranny to freedom is possible; specifically, when mass communication first starts to develop through printing press. Before that, there's no way to educate the masses; soon after, technology advances to the point where communications can be easily monitored. At that point, if democracy hasn't taken firm enough root, it's too late, and dictatorship will continue, possibly forever. Time will tell if us Western democracies survive the current test; but China missed its chance and will remain a hellhole forever.
All of which, of course, means that we should start systematically severing our economic ties to China. We can't help them up - and, according to you, we shouldn't even try - but they can bring us down.
I would be interested to know why people would pay money to change the geography of their Internet servers when they could simply switch to a darknet. I'd recommend trying Freenet for a while and see if you have any complaints besides it being slower than the observable Internet.
I'm genuinely interested in why more people do not take this approach.
Because in order to use Freenet as a darknet, you need at least 3 friends who are already doing so. And if you're not using it as a darknet, you're setting up a big neon sign of "I have something to hide" above your head.
Then there's the fact that most "content" on Freenet makes 4chan seem mature.
What happened was labour was in short supply so the peasants got to name their price for the work they did. Previously they were considered lucky to have a roof over their heads and enough to eat.
So what you're saying is that bacteria are better at solving economic problems than the US Congress?
I guess that credit rating downgrade was warranted...
What a load of crap. The Amish are treated like pets by the rest of society.
Yes, that's what I said: the rest of the society protects Amish from the cruel world that's marched on since the 1800's, thus allowing them to continue their full-life LARP without getting eaten by said world.
Define meaningful. To me, building a barn together with all your neighbours that'll last a century is a lot more meaningful than any glittering widget that comes out of Apple Inc. (et al).
Notice the qualifier "to the society" in my post? All of us have things that are meaningful to us; that's called "hobbies". The Amish could be scientists, industrial workers, farmers, and whatever; instead, they're intentionally limiting themselves to subsistence farming, thus crippling their potential.
Don't get me wrong: it's certainly their right to do so. And it's my right to not pretend it's something else than pathetic.
What a poser you are. None of that makes a lick of sense. For one thing, Ayn Rand (of Galt's Gulch fame) despised libertarians, and how the hell do you get proselytizing from "leave us alone"?!? Think of it instead as, "count me out. I don't like your strychnine laced koolaid, and don't want to drink any, thanks."
Ayn Rand was a libertarian in all meaningful ways: specifically, she advocated that the strong should be allowed to do whatever the damn they want, the weak should die, and the government should be as minimal as possible. As for "leaving us alone", following the principle of unregulated markets has been the underlaying cause to pretty much every economic crisis from the Wall Street Crash of 1929 to offshoring to the current financial crises around the world.
How is that in any way a threat to you if you're not intent on pushing poisoned koolaid on others? Ah, I know; you've a "social agenda" that you're pushing and expect everyone to buy into it "for the good of all" whether they want it or not. Who's the tyrannical one now?
Yes, I have a social agenda: a stable society and economy which allows both me and others to live our lives without constantly worrying about what next disaster the financial geniuses in charge will unleash upon us. I push it because it's good for me; that it's also good for others is a nice bonus.
Also, haven't you libertarians kept pushing unregulated market economies and globalization to the entire world for decades now? Most countries and most people don't want them, for the reasons I outlined above, but that doesn't matter to you: they adopt them, either through economic sanctions or through military force. So yeah, who is the tyrannical one now?
Show me someone who hates [Ll]ibertarians, and I'll prove to you they've no inkling of what [Ll]ibertarians actually believe or want. Read some books, FFS! Don't take all your opinions from shallow as a pane of glass six o'clock news commentators.
Yes, I'm sure there's plenty of books about libertarian philosophy, and I'm sure they're very good. But you know what? It doesn't matter what something is in theory, it matters what it is in practice - and libertarianism in practice is about setting up a plutocracy unhindered by democracy. Except it often fails to live up to even that, and just becomes and excuse to loot as much as you can before the system collapses.
Demopublican, Republicrat, whatever, I can get along with any of you if you'll just leave me alone. [Ll]ibertarians are a lot like the Amish; we chose not to drink your Koolaid. If you like it, carry on, none of my damned business.
The Amish separate themselves from modern society, rather than demand that said society bend over backwards to cater to their peculiarities, like libertarians do. They fail to live up to their potential, depriving said society of any meaningful contribution while still benefiting from its protection and occasional bits of modern science and technology, but ultimately spending their lifes fruitlessly due to vanity is their business, no matter how ironic it might be. Libertarians, on the other hand, actively promote their "laissez-faire" idiocy, resulting in ever-worsening economical and social problems.
If you want to be treated like the Amish, do like the Amish: move to a Galt's Gulch somewhere and stop bothering the rest of us.
Because Windows has a driver model and Linux doesn't?
Linux drivers are actually kernel modules, accessing things through constantly changing internal APIs. They are part of the kernel source and thus need said source - or at least the header files - to compile. And because the internal APIs are constantly changing, someone needs to keep maintaining the driver just to track the changes and dealing with them.
I don't think that Linux driver situation is going to change until this does, and I don't think that this is going to change, as it would interfere with kernel development, and kernel developers are in charge here.
In other words, where there is power, there are lies.
The weak lie too. In fact even animals do (such as give warning sounds when there's no danger to scare other pack members away from food). Then there are pitcher plants, which lure insects to their doom by emitting a good (for an insect) smell. And viruses spread by fooling ribosomes to mistake viral RNA for that of the cell.
I agree with you for the most part, but our disagreements are the important bits.
I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing: I'm talking about how to keep power from concentrating into the point of dictatorship and you seem to be talking about economic efficiency.
The main problem is that the bigger a bureaucracy becomes, the less effective "checks and balances" become. You see the same issue in large businesses - incredible amounts of money get wasted, millions of man-hours get spent on useless make-work projects, and entire departments get created for the sole purpose of making someone look important.
The checks and balances aren't there to promote efficiency, they are there to keep any one person from amassing enough power to become a dictator.
This is simply a lie. I've never met a libertarian who wants to "dismantle central government".
Really? Because I've seen plenty of posts suggesting it reduced to the point where it's unable to do anything - either by making it impossible for it to rise money, or voting gridlock, or whatever. How is a non-functional government not "dismantled"?
Because even most Libertarians will generally acknowledge that one of the legitimate functions of a government is to enforce anti-monopoly laws.
No, most libertarians will not generally acknowledge any such thing. Libertarians want government to not regulate the market in any way; it's the defining characteristic of the ideology.
I'm not sure what it is you're scared of, exactly.
That with a smaller and weaker government the rich and powerful will grow even more so, and with nothing restraining them anymore, will screw me over even worse than they can now.
And where, exactly, do you propose we find these Robot Overlords who can be trusted with the reigns of power?
Nowhere. Nobody can be trusted with the reigns of power. However, someone will hold them nonetheless, so we better make it someone who we can watch, restrain and control. This is the idea behind the division of power between various sectors of government, or "checks and balances" as you call it.
Wassat? You want "bad" people to vote for other "bad" people which will somehow make a "good" government that protects us from "bad" people? Oh boy....
No. I simply don't see any better way of keeping the bad people who hold power from screwing up all the other bad people, including myself. Also, I don't necessarily hold people to be bad, just flawed or corruptible.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Libertarians want to dismantle central government, which will inevitably lead to feudalism; and history shows that feudalism is a very bad form of government indeed. Look, I understand why you people don't want Big Government; simply understand that those are the very same reason why I don't want Big Capital to rule instead, and I've never heard a convincing argument for why that wouldn't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Either the heat generated will be enough to destroy cable material, or it won't be. If it is, the damaged part melts, the cable is cut, and the current ceases, thus stopping the heating. If it isn't, the net resistance of the cable increases as more and more of it falls out of superconducting state, leading to less and less heating, ultimately stopping the spread of the non-superconducting section.
In any case, simply monitoring resistance is sufficient to detect any problems.
That's because n university is not a vocational school. It's purpose is to teach theoretical knowledge, not prepare people for a job. And yes, that means that you shouldn't go to one if your goal is a well-paying job outside academica.
University trains scientists; you're looking for engineers.
But I guess sitting in front of the computer and trolling Slashdot anonymously does, eh?
I don't fight to survive, and I sincerely doubt you do either, otherwise why would you waste your time here rather than seek some advantage?
But so do effective available resources, as a greater proportion of them can be tapped.
It takes a huge area to collect it, which translates to a huge investment, we're in the middle of an economic collapse, and our leaders are only interested in staying in power.
In the next few years EU, if it still exists, will be too much burdened bailing out one bankupt member state after another to invest in anything. That there's also a rising nationalistic sentiment in the continent doesn't help either, especially since most libyans are muslims.
Yeah. Where would the water come? Fall from the sky?
Don't worry: perhaps China or India will sell you tourist trips to the landing site, once they've finished fighting over which one it belongs to. That should convince your sceptics that you once amounted to something, difficult as it might be to believe it now.
Yeah, you went to the Moon, just like the Vikings went to the America... but neither of you could actually hold to your new holdings, now could you? So, in the end, your achievement is just a footnote in history, and the Moon will belong to whoever will colonize it - and that won't be you.
There's value in survival, and having humans spread in multiple planets helps ensure that. This planet frequently suffers asteroid strikes, supervolcano eruptions, ice ages, methane eruptions, and possibly other hazards; we must claim other planets if we're to avoid extinction.
Then there's value in growth. We're getting to the point of tapping Earth's resources, at least at our current technology level, so spreading to space is the next logical step. And while Moon might not have plenty of resources by itself, it's an airless low-gravity world in close proximity to Earth, making it the perfect place to launch deep-space asteroid-mining operations and other mission. And Moon does have water, which is useful by itself and as a raw material for fuel or for oxygen, and plenty of solar energy besides.
Finally, there's value in making the universe a more interesting place by colonizing lifeless worlds and converting them into biospheres. Moon is dead rock right now; wouldn't a Moon with thriving metropolises and all the associated life be a far more interesting place?
Going by your own angle, I wonder if that's really true; after all, politicians are still humans and just as capable of human failings as everyone else. Yet the way you are talking of them makes them seem like they were exempt from this, and instead had perfect internal clarity, rather than just deceiving themselves that they are doing the right thing, just like everyone else does according to yourself. It would seem a lot simpler to assume that the people on top are pretty much like the people at the bottom, and simply have more opportunities to act out their flaws (and less support against that from peer pressure). Act the pressure of a position where utmost competence is required on someone who is not really any more competent than Joe Average, and it should come as no surprise that extreme behaviour and megalomania tend to result.
Also, I can't help but notice that this "element of betrayl not present in little white lies" stuff sounds an awful lot like an attempt to excuse said "white" lies. In fact, the very way you use the term "white lie" here seems to differ from the usual usage: you use it for self-deception, while the usual meaning is about lies told in situations where telling the truth would cause unneccessary pain or be otherwise morally wrong (like the classic "Gestapo comes asking if you have Jews hidden in your basement and you do" -scenario).
Isn't the defining trait of sociopathy not caring about justifications, but simply doing whatever you want and think you can get away with?
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything."
That's the problem with censorship: after it goes to effect, you can't really say anything about what people want, because the information you would need to do so is being manipulated.
Western countries do have quite a bit of experience with dictatorship and tyranny. On the other hand, China has no experience with freedom and democracy. So I'd say that we have every right to comment on China.
In any case, I think there's a certain period in history where transition from tyranny to freedom is possible; specifically, when mass communication first starts to develop through printing press. Before that, there's no way to educate the masses; soon after, technology advances to the point where communications can be easily monitored. At that point, if democracy hasn't taken firm enough root, it's too late, and dictatorship will continue, possibly forever. Time will tell if us Western democracies survive the current test; but China missed its chance and will remain a hellhole forever.
All of which, of course, means that we should start systematically severing our economic ties to China. We can't help them up - and, according to you, we shouldn't even try - but they can bring us down.
Because in order to use Freenet as a darknet, you need at least 3 friends who are already doing so. And if you're not using it as a darknet, you're setting up a big neon sign of "I have something to hide" above your head.
Then there's the fact that most "content" on Freenet makes 4chan seem mature.
Most people don't want to learn things for their own sake, they want to get something done and learn just enough to accomplish that.
So what you're saying is that bacteria are better at solving economic problems than the US Congress?
I guess that credit rating downgrade was warranted...
Yes, that's what I said: the rest of the society protects Amish from the cruel world that's marched on since the 1800's, thus allowing them to continue their full-life LARP without getting eaten by said world.
Notice the qualifier "to the society" in my post? All of us have things that are meaningful to us; that's called "hobbies". The Amish could be scientists, industrial workers, farmers, and whatever; instead, they're intentionally limiting themselves to subsistence farming, thus crippling their potential.
Don't get me wrong: it's certainly their right to do so. And it's my right to not pretend it's something else than pathetic.
Ayn Rand was a libertarian in all meaningful ways: specifically, she advocated that the strong should be allowed to do whatever the damn they want, the weak should die, and the government should be as minimal as possible. As for "leaving us alone", following the principle of unregulated markets has been the underlaying cause to pretty much every economic crisis from the Wall Street Crash of 1929 to offshoring to the current financial crises around the world.
Yes, I have a social agenda: a stable society and economy which allows both me and others to live our lives without constantly worrying about what next disaster the financial geniuses in charge will unleash upon us. I push it because it's good for me; that it's also good for others is a nice bonus.
Also, haven't you libertarians kept pushing unregulated market economies and globalization to the entire world for decades now? Most countries and most people don't want them, for the reasons I outlined above, but that doesn't matter to you: they adopt them, either through economic sanctions or through military force. So yeah, who is the tyrannical one now?
Yes, I'm sure there's plenty of books about libertarian philosophy, and I'm sure they're very good. But you know what? It doesn't matter what something is in theory, it matters what it is in practice - and libertarianism in practice is about setting up a plutocracy unhindered by democracy. Except it often fails to live up to even that, and just becomes and excuse to loot as much as you can before the system collapses.
The Amish separate themselves from modern society, rather than demand that said society bend over backwards to cater to their peculiarities, like libertarians do. They fail to live up to their potential, depriving said society of any meaningful contribution while still benefiting from its protection and occasional bits of modern science and technology, but ultimately spending their lifes fruitlessly due to vanity is their business, no matter how ironic it might be. Libertarians, on the other hand, actively promote their "laissez-faire" idiocy, resulting in ever-worsening economical and social problems.
If you want to be treated like the Amish, do like the Amish: move to a Galt's Gulch somewhere and stop bothering the rest of us.
The water in lakes flows downstream towards its drainage rivers. It's simply slower than in rivers.
Now the question remains: is that because you're Alan King, or because you're Edwin J. Goodwin?
For most "economics teachers" on Slashdot and elsewhere it's the latter.
You forgot one important one:
Because Windows has a driver model and Linux doesn't?
Linux drivers are actually kernel modules, accessing things through constantly changing internal APIs. They are part of the kernel source and thus need said source - or at least the header files - to compile. And because the internal APIs are constantly changing, someone needs to keep maintaining the driver just to track the changes and dealing with them.
I don't think that Linux driver situation is going to change until this does, and I don't think that this is going to change, as it would interfere with kernel development, and kernel developers are in charge here.
The weak lie too. In fact even animals do (such as give warning sounds when there's no danger to scare other pack members away from food). Then there are pitcher plants, which lure insects to their doom by emitting a good (for an insect) smell. And viruses spread by fooling ribosomes to mistake viral RNA for that of the cell.
Where there is life, there are lies.
"Natural", as in caused by what process(es)?
I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing: I'm talking about how to keep power from concentrating into the point of dictatorship and you seem to be talking about economic efficiency.
The checks and balances aren't there to promote efficiency, they are there to keep any one person from amassing enough power to become a dictator.
Really? Because I've seen plenty of posts suggesting it reduced to the point where it's unable to do anything - either by making it impossible for it to rise money, or voting gridlock, or whatever. How is a non-functional government not "dismantled"?
No, most libertarians will not generally acknowledge any such thing. Libertarians want government to not regulate the market in any way; it's the defining characteristic of the ideology.
That with a smaller and weaker government the rich and powerful will grow even more so, and with nothing restraining them anymore, will screw me over even worse than they can now.
The difference between a cult and a religion is that a cult tries to isolate its members from the outside world, while a religion won't.
A religion is beer while a cult is crack cocaine.
How do you base a film on the premise that there is no afterlife? Show a car coming towards the camera and then two hours of empty screen?
Nowhere. Nobody can be trusted with the reigns of power. However, someone will hold them nonetheless, so we better make it someone who we can watch, restrain and control. This is the idea behind the division of power between various sectors of government, or "checks and balances" as you call it.
No. I simply don't see any better way of keeping the bad people who hold power from screwing up all the other bad people, including myself. Also, I don't necessarily hold people to be bad, just flawed or corruptible.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Libertarians want to dismantle central government, which will inevitably lead to feudalism; and history shows that feudalism is a very bad form of government indeed. Look, I understand why you people don't want Big Government; simply understand that those are the very same reason why I don't want Big Capital to rule instead, and I've never heard a convincing argument for why that wouldn't happen.