That's not what Wikipedia says! And Wikipedia is edited by EVERYONE! Your single web site is edited by just a small oligarchy (maybe even ONE person) that doesn't have to worry about people correcting their inaccurate tripe!
(Everything on the Internet is wrong: Wikipedia can be edited by any moron; and any non-public-generated Web site is controlled entirely by one moron)
I thought Slashdot recently ran an article with a scientist pointing out that models never, ever worked and kept getting changed because when stuff changed the results were different than the model would predict based on the new data? Or was that for economic models?
Regenerative braking cannot produce 100% of the energy used to accelerate. It's physically impossible. If you have a little angry demon with a molecular gate allowing hot molecules through a little door and closing it to block cold molecules, you don't get a thing with one side very hot with no energy input; the little demon must do work, and so expends energy in the process. Regenerative braking involves doing work, and so will expend energy in the process.
It's more of an issue that what's happening is completely unpredictable and follows no model. It could be, for instance, that CO2 emissions account for 1% of the fluctuation, while 99% of the fluctuation comes from (for example) the long-term decay of a particular waste product used in the production of a lubricant in wind turbines. While we're all looking at the scary white sheet with holes cut in the eyes, the white elephant in the room starts crushing people.
Take the poster who proposed that global warming must be man-made because it would cause the cooling of the stratosphere, and thus we must be choking the planet with CO2 since the stratosphere is cooling. He missed that the stratosphere would also cool due to thinning of the ozone layer, which was caused mainly by CFCs from aerosol cans. His model wasn't well-constructed (or evaluated, even); our scientists have poorly constructed (but well-evaluated) models they keep changing, and insist on something they can't model down All this unpredictability suggests other things are happening that we don't understand.
If other things are happening, shouldn't we be looking for those? Especially if they carry enough bulk significance to trivialize our models. Seriously people think the tailpipe emissions from hummers will destroy the planet, that's why we had a lot of SUVs burned and why electric cars are being hailed as saviors of the future.
Reduction of volume of ozone layer gasses is linked strongly to stratospheric cooling as a cause. That said, the only decent explanation for that is CFC crap in the air, rather than a natural cycle.
The basic premise of science is you say, "When I put a cheese here, the mouse runs out from there to come get it." When the mouse doesn't run from there, but instead digs through the ground to get the cheese, you're supposed to go, "Oh, the mouse seems to be a burrowing land critter. And it likes cheese."
Now here's the tough part: The mouse burrows, but doesn't eat the cheese. It eats grubs. You thus proscribe that, interestingly the mouse is apparently a burrowing land critter that likes grubs (I suspect you've mistaken a mole or gnoll for a mouse...). So you set out the cheese again, and the mouse comes out to inspect it, but sees a small lizard and eats that instead of the cheese... apparently the mouse likes lizards too. You improve your model, writing down that the mouse likes grubs and lizards. You remove these and put out the cheese again, but the mouse is distracted by a grasshopper.
If you continue to insist that the mouse likes grubs, lizards, grasshoppers, AND CHEESE, you aren't doing science. You keep adjusting your model as you learn new things; but your model has yet to show that the mouse will even eat cheese, or has a preference toward it. Even if you starve the damn mouse and give it cheese with nothing else around, you might just show that the mice can eat cheese and will register it as food; if you then assert that mice find cheese palatable or otherwise hold a preference to it, you are making shit up.
That's the problem here. Scientists design a climate model, and then find out that they don't understand the damn thing and it doesn't work out the way they predicted. They then improve the model. Across all these improvements, they start making baseless claims that they've yet to actually show a valid experimental model for, because their model never works. Politicians and journalists would have us believe that scientists know that when we increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by 150ppm, we'll see a rise of 0.6 degrees Celsius global average temperature; THAT WON'T HAPPEN, but they'll point at the increase in both and the changes in the weather (including drought, increases and decreases in different places, etc) and claim it's related and that one is caused by the other.
The reality is random shit is happening, and we haven't figured out how to fit a model to it to show that it's really not random. We're pretty sure it's not, we just don't have an explanation yet.
Statist wet dream? Sir are you implying that politicians are interested in their own political agendas and not purely in the well-being of everyone on this shiny blue planet?
1 degree temperature difference doesn't cause drought. Drought is caused by it raining in the wrong place. It's always gonna rain... in the desert it rains on the other side of the mountain. If the wind blows all the rain clouds north, or jetstreams take them west and over your farmland FOR A YEAR, it doesn't rain on you. Changing weather patterns can change the way the wind moves, changing where water vapor concentrates and preventing it from raining in an area; if it didn't rain the planet would turn into Venus (high humidity everywhere), but of course it'll just rain somewhere else. Over the ocean is a good, useless place for rain to go.
It's better than that. Take this chart for example (This chart has been photoshopped! Simpsons did it!). This chart shows that we're coming out of a global cold period and haven't yet broken the global hot averages. Mind you the chart is inaccurate: back before the past 100 or so years, we only have 30 year averages. That means the ridiculously hot "medieval warm period" shows data points for averages over 30 years: we can at least take on faith that some years were that hot; more likely some years were hotter, perhaps drastically hotter (unlikely given the period of stability; I would say mildly hotter).
The basic claim Hansen made is that we're facing almost certain man-made global warming, and coming out of an ice age has nothing to do with it. That temperatures have been rising since 1700 and that it's been hotter before don't seem to have occurred to him.
It's a hilariously distant leap of logic. Real scientists will try to correlate power output, fuel burned, soot and CO2 and methane and water vapor in the atmosphere, etc with their heat-trapping and heat-reflecting effects, and show a model that then predicts weather pattern changes based on these things. If that model holds, global warming due to such factors; if it doesn't, then global warming is possibly real (look, it's getting hotter) but the idea of it being caused by human meddling with the atmospheric composition is a myth. That's how science works: we see these things, hypothesize these effects, then point at the changes and say this is what will happen... it happens, we're right; if not, we try again.
That in mind, global warming science is a lot of double-think bullshit. The scientists can't get the model to work quite right, and keep changing it. We're learning new things all the time, and refining our understanding of all this stuff... but while we don't understand it and are continuously wrong in our predictions, we swear that we see proof about some fuzzy concept in front of us. That's not science, it's religion. Cult of global warming.
The summary is great though. "It's so drastic it HAS to be a man-made event! It's proof! Something that BIG wouldn't just HAPPEN, and this is the obvious cause!"
Damn, it's only 4.4LY? I thought the closest thing out there was 60-ish... or is that the closest we can get to a nova without our planet being stripped of life?
It will always require as much energy to move information across space as it takes to move information across space. If it suddenly takes very little, a lot of interesting stuff happens. It's like how you have to apply a megajoule of energy to a block of steel to make it liquid molten steel; then someone says by a cheap trick of physics they can tap on the steel gently and it's suddenly 1700 degrees and glowing red and flowing. Something very interesting just happened, to say the least; where the fuck did all this energy come from?
Instantaneous entanglement across any distance is akin to snapping your fingers and having magical shit happen. If it's possible, you're going to need a hell of a lot of energy.
You can always send more particles by beaming light there. Though outages are amusing. "Alpha-Centauri station? Yeah, our trasnciever is down. In 379 years there's going to be a service interruption from us, guess we'll have to work from the stock of supplied particles you're sending now, so for a little while half as much data. We'll let you know when it's back up so you know how long the outage is gonna last."
It takes no more energy to move a photon lightyears, but it takes YEARS to move it. If we postulate that there must be a way to make an entanglement occur over 10 lightyears in an instant, rather than moving a photon for 10 years to create that gap; then we would assume that it takes somewhat more energy to make that instant entanglement across 10 lightyears than it does to make it across 10 meters. If we find out this is not true, then something about the way space physically works is VERY different from our understanding, and we could just teleport physical matter with little to no power usage. A discovery like that would obsolete weird entanglement communications.
And really, if you can make it to Alpha-Centauri in any appreciable time (that is, in any amount of time where technology doesn't outpace your transit and send a faster vessel to beat you there), then you're better off sending gap courier drones instead of bothering with the complexities of entangled particles. Realize the entanglement has to be maintained for the long years across the long distances it takes to get a particle from point A to point B; if you can just put a message in a bottle and pop it over there in short order, that's probably better. Be mindful that a 400 year space trip is likely untenable.
Actually from what I hear the DMCA requires immediate carrier response. If they tell the carrier your content is infringing, then your carrier MUST shut it down; it's not their call, legally they must remove the content on claim. Then you can come back and say bullshit, and your carrier can re-instate it, and then it's your legal battle--there's no edit war here, you're now responsible for the content and the carrier by statute is able to legally accept your claim as primary until the court decides who has controlling interest.
All of Card's books, from what I understand, have no real solution. Ender's Game was terrible: there was no sane way to approach the problem at hand, and the books further down the line play on the whole mess. For example, Ender is immortalized as a horrible genocidal maniac who exterminates an entire alien culture... after being tricked into thinking he's playing a computer game, by a race of people who believe the aliens are coming to destroy them, and of course immediately take over all the planets these now-dead aliens had inhabited once they've tricked a small boy into murdering the lot of them. Speaker for the Dead has a lot of strangeness in it but nothing quite so complex, although due to an unstoppable disease they have to cripple a burgeoning culture that they've interfered with. Due to the volatile nature of all this, wouldn't it make sense to nuke the whole planet anyway a la the ending of Ender's Game? Is murder still an option?
Ender's Game is like a third grade reading level, and Orson Scott Card went on a tirade against all his critics claiming that writing prose isn't really important. In his book about Characters and Viewpoint, he even makes a different argument: if you don't write well, nobody is going to figure out what the hell story you're trying to tell.
Ender's Game had a well-developed story, but it was poorly executed. It was like reading a kid's story.
It's very hard to switch light on and off quite that fast without the pulses degrading. You have a switch that can run 32 of these ports, it can do 32 times as much bandwidth as 1 port. Simple?
Instantaneous sub-space communications over infinite distance would be freakishly strange given our current understanding of physics. It would imply that information can travel over great distances with no energy.
No serious scifi reader in their right mind likes Orson Scott Card either; though I must admit his books about HOW to write are amazing, even if his actual writing is shit.
You can only send 1 gigabit across a 1 gigabit link; but if your hardware is fast enough to process 1 terrabit/s, you could send that. We don't have 1Tb links, though there's 10GbE. Also entanglement isn't instant over distance; it's limited by the speed of light, i.e. two particles 1 light year apart take at a minimum a year to entangle. You can do this by entangling two particles together and then moving them apart, or if you find a magic way to entangle two particles that are far apart you can do that but it won't be any faster than speed-of-light.
If you want to cut latency, you have to pre-load entangled particles. If you want to pre-load entangled particles, you need more bandwidth than you're using (to set up; once you've got it, you can ride equillibrium by transmitting newly entangled particles while transmitting data across the entangled ones). If you've got that, though, you can fill an even bigger bucket and then drain it by transmitting at a burst rate higher than the physical link can carry. So a 1Gbit link can store up 10Gbit over 10 seconds, and then burst down 10Gbit in precisely as much time as it takes the processor to shove it down the link--ignoring physical link speed entirely.
I'm no expert in this, but I dont think you understand whats going on here at all. Flipping one doesn't instantly flip the other. You cant communicate information via entanglement.
Well, I'm no expert in this, but you're wrong. You can't transfer information faster than light; what you can do is transfer an entangled particle at the speed of light, and then tap one particle and read the other to see what happened with it. Across 300 light years, if you manipulate particle A[0}, particle A[1] instantly reflects its new state; however it does take 300 years to get particles A[0] and A[1] 300 light years apart. You can't just wake up and decide to transmit 3 gigabytes of information without 3 gigabytes of entangled particles hanging out across the void already.
Actually I was thinking more of something like that, but with store/drain, depending on how far entanglement goes and how long you can maintain it.
Think about 1 meter entanglement range. You entangle two particles, shift one a meter away. It takes time to move that particle, of course; but once it's entangled, flipping one flips the other instantly.
Bandwidth like this is infinite. If you have 1Gbit/s real bandwidth and can store 3000Gbit of entangled particles stably. and they're stable for 3000 seconds on average, you can eventually build up 3000Gbit of entanglement between two nodes.
Now space these nodes a meter apart down the wire, 1500Gbit on each end relaying, 2km. While there's less than 1Gbit/s in use, store entangled particles. At a point, you have 1500Gbit of bandwidth charge... and then you can dump 1500Gbit of data straight on the link (if your computer is fast enough to send that to the hardware!) and your burst data rate is 1500Gbit INSTANTANEOUS. It's 1500Gbit in however many cycles it takes to move 1500Gbit from memory onto the output buffer--if it takes 10 cycles to get a bit from RAM onto the "wire" (that's 320 cycles per 32-bit word on a 32-bit bus, which is realistic--random RAM read can be 200-400 cycles to precharge, set RAS, CAS, etc, but sequential can be 10-20 cycles, plus overhead messing with the actual transmit hardware), at 1.5GHz CPU that's 150MHz or 10 seconds to transmit 1500Gbit. 3GHz that's 5 seconds, and with 3GHz quad core and a distributed architecture that's a little over a second--you've achieved nearly 1.5Tbit/s burst with near-zero latency over 2km!
By the time the technology is actually affordable for such use, the range will probably be in the km. That means repeaters entangled across miles and miles. You think we need 1500Gbit/s burst? Saturation will happen often enough to warrant bursting. It'd take 1500 seconds over a 1Gbit link running idle, like 2.5 hours. Probably 2-3 times capacity (2-3 Gbit) entangled store being used to artificially raise peak capacity (when off-peak, i.e. 50% utilization of 1Gbit/s over a few seconds means you can constantly burst, store up 3Gbit and then 3Gbit comes and you transmit it instantly instead of over 3 seconds). and decrease off-peak latency (50% saturation? Store for 50%, use for the other 50%, zero ping!).
All that untapped capacity of a 30% or 70% utilized network will ACTUALLY MAKE IT FASTER. Imagine!
That's... a lot of waste heat from power usage. Consider a surface temperature of freezing on average (273 kelvin), 1% would be a 2.73 degree change (kelvin, celsius), 0.36% is a degree. Not to mention it radiates out faster than it covers the planet (part of the planet is hot, part is cold, obviously the heat from the hot part radiates out to space partially before it warms the cool part, else the planet would be one uniform temperature), which means in theory cities would be hotter than other places without industrialization. In effect, a packed highway in rush hour should be a very hot place compared to a grassy meadow a half mile away.
All power ends up as waste heat, except hydro and wind and tidal. Geothermal technically doesn't end up as waste heat, but for our limited scope it does (else so does hydro and wind and tidal). Hydro and tidal alters the movement of water; wind alters the movement of wind and weather. While both of these will have major impacts on surface weather patterns if we derive a lot of power from them, they still serve to simply pull heat from the environment and then move it around.
By contrast, solar power attempts to capture sunlight that would otherwise reflect to space. Burning coal or oil or wood releases stored energy (this happens normally, but much more slowly, with wood; we're speeding up the absorption-release cycle of trapping solar energy into wood and then releasing it later by burning it quickly). Nuclear power releases the energy in nuclear material quickly (that fuel's been in the ground for ages, we use it up in a few decades). Geothermal brings heat to the surface as solar does, but from the ground rather than the sky. Even running a diesel or gasoline engine heats the engine, which belches hot exhaust from a hot engine block that must eventually cool down.
Every piece of energy we collect goes into storage which is potential-controlled. This storage is isolated in some way--chemically, for example, or maybe thermally insulated--to prevent it from bleeding off. A battery lets energy flow to equalize its hot (negative) side with its cold (positive) side, releasing the potential difference as waste heat (more heat at higher resistance segments of the pathway). A gasoline engine does the same, allowing hot gases to expand to distribute heat by distributing a concentrated high energy mass (burned fuel exhaust, lots of energy in one place, hence why it's hot), which moves a piston. We store and sometimes utilize (i.e. electricity) these things as something other than heat, but in the end all energy becomes heat when applied.
Unity seems to be a result of "let's copy Apple" and "let's copy Apple." iPhone ui with menus at the top of the screen, completely dissociated from the window they're in (this is great for a single-tasking desktop environment where windows are always maximized; for multi-tasking it sucks, and right now I'm going to move my cursor out of my not-maximized Firefox window and hit the "File" menu in LibreOffice...). Done so horribly clunky and wrong too. Gnome3 at least is nice to work with, though I might go back to Gnome2 if I could tap the top left corner and get an Expose view with virtual desktop browser as in Gnome3.
This is a known hazard of pulling out a study for your own interests: if it falls against you then you MUST suck, and if it falls in your favor well duh.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not what Wikipedia says! And Wikipedia is edited by EVERYONE! Your single web site is edited by just a small oligarchy (maybe even ONE person) that doesn't have to worry about people correcting their inaccurate tripe!
(Everything on the Internet is wrong: Wikipedia can be edited by any moron; and any non-public-generated Web site is controlled entirely by one moron)
I thought Slashdot recently ran an article with a scientist pointing out that models never, ever worked and kept getting changed because when stuff changed the results were different than the model would predict based on the new data? Or was that for economic models?
Regenerative braking cannot produce 100% of the energy used to accelerate. It's physically impossible. If you have a little angry demon with a molecular gate allowing hot molecules through a little door and closing it to block cold molecules, you don't get a thing with one side very hot with no energy input; the little demon must do work, and so expends energy in the process. Regenerative braking involves doing work, and so will expend energy in the process.
The hypothesis doesn't have to be wrong for the experimental evidence to be terrible.
It's more of an issue that what's happening is completely unpredictable and follows no model. It could be, for instance, that CO2 emissions account for 1% of the fluctuation, while 99% of the fluctuation comes from (for example) the long-term decay of a particular waste product used in the production of a lubricant in wind turbines. While we're all looking at the scary white sheet with holes cut in the eyes, the white elephant in the room starts crushing people.
Take the poster who proposed that global warming must be man-made because it would cause the cooling of the stratosphere, and thus we must be choking the planet with CO2 since the stratosphere is cooling. He missed that the stratosphere would also cool due to thinning of the ozone layer, which was caused mainly by CFCs from aerosol cans. His model wasn't well-constructed (or evaluated, even); our scientists have poorly constructed (but well-evaluated) models they keep changing, and insist on something they can't model down All this unpredictability suggests other things are happening that we don't understand.
If other things are happening, shouldn't we be looking for those? Especially if they carry enough bulk significance to trivialize our models. Seriously people think the tailpipe emissions from hummers will destroy the planet, that's why we had a lot of SUVs burned and why electric cars are being hailed as saviors of the future.
Reduction of volume of ozone layer gasses is linked strongly to stratospheric cooling as a cause. That said, the only decent explanation for that is CFC crap in the air, rather than a natural cycle.
The basic premise of science is you say, "When I put a cheese here, the mouse runs out from there to come get it." When the mouse doesn't run from there, but instead digs through the ground to get the cheese, you're supposed to go, "Oh, the mouse seems to be a burrowing land critter. And it likes cheese."
Now here's the tough part: The mouse burrows, but doesn't eat the cheese. It eats grubs. You thus proscribe that, interestingly the mouse is apparently a burrowing land critter that likes grubs (I suspect you've mistaken a mole or gnoll for a mouse...). So you set out the cheese again, and the mouse comes out to inspect it, but sees a small lizard and eats that instead of the cheese... apparently the mouse likes lizards too. You improve your model, writing down that the mouse likes grubs and lizards. You remove these and put out the cheese again, but the mouse is distracted by a grasshopper.
If you continue to insist that the mouse likes grubs, lizards, grasshoppers, AND CHEESE, you aren't doing science. You keep adjusting your model as you learn new things; but your model has yet to show that the mouse will even eat cheese, or has a preference toward it. Even if you starve the damn mouse and give it cheese with nothing else around, you might just show that the mice can eat cheese and will register it as food; if you then assert that mice find cheese palatable or otherwise hold a preference to it, you are making shit up.
That's the problem here. Scientists design a climate model, and then find out that they don't understand the damn thing and it doesn't work out the way they predicted. They then improve the model. Across all these improvements, they start making baseless claims that they've yet to actually show a valid experimental model for, because their model never works. Politicians and journalists would have us believe that scientists know that when we increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by 150ppm, we'll see a rise of 0.6 degrees Celsius global average temperature; THAT WON'T HAPPEN, but they'll point at the increase in both and the changes in the weather (including drought, increases and decreases in different places, etc) and claim it's related and that one is caused by the other.
The reality is random shit is happening, and we haven't figured out how to fit a model to it to show that it's really not random. We're pretty sure it's not, we just don't have an explanation yet.
Statist wet dream? Sir are you implying that politicians are interested in their own political agendas and not purely in the well-being of everyone on this shiny blue planet?
1 degree temperature difference doesn't cause drought. Drought is caused by it raining in the wrong place. It's always gonna rain ... in the desert it rains on the other side of the mountain. If the wind blows all the rain clouds north, or jetstreams take them west and over your farmland FOR A YEAR, it doesn't rain on you. Changing weather patterns can change the way the wind moves, changing where water vapor concentrates and preventing it from raining in an area; if it didn't rain the planet would turn into Venus (high humidity everywhere), but of course it'll just rain somewhere else. Over the ocean is a good, useless place for rain to go.
It's better than that. Take this chart for example (This chart has been photoshopped! Simpsons did it!). This chart shows that we're coming out of a global cold period and haven't yet broken the global hot averages. Mind you the chart is inaccurate: back before the past 100 or so years, we only have 30 year averages. That means the ridiculously hot "medieval warm period" shows data points for averages over 30 years: we can at least take on faith that some years were that hot; more likely some years were hotter, perhaps drastically hotter (unlikely given the period of stability; I would say mildly hotter).
The basic claim Hansen made is that we're facing almost certain man-made global warming, and coming out of an ice age has nothing to do with it. That temperatures have been rising since 1700 and that it's been hotter before don't seem to have occurred to him.
It's a hilariously distant leap of logic. Real scientists will try to correlate power output, fuel burned, soot and CO2 and methane and water vapor in the atmosphere, etc with their heat-trapping and heat-reflecting effects, and show a model that then predicts weather pattern changes based on these things. If that model holds, global warming due to such factors; if it doesn't, then global warming is possibly real (look, it's getting hotter) but the idea of it being caused by human meddling with the atmospheric composition is a myth. That's how science works: we see these things, hypothesize these effects, then point at the changes and say this is what will happen... it happens, we're right; if not, we try again.
That in mind, global warming science is a lot of double-think bullshit. The scientists can't get the model to work quite right, and keep changing it. We're learning new things all the time, and refining our understanding of all this stuff... but while we don't understand it and are continuously wrong in our predictions, we swear that we see proof about some fuzzy concept in front of us. That's not science, it's religion. Cult of global warming.
The summary is great though. "It's so drastic it HAS to be a man-made event! It's proof! Something that BIG wouldn't just HAPPEN, and this is the obvious cause!"
Damn, it's only 4.4LY? I thought the closest thing out there was 60-ish ... or is that the closest we can get to a nova without our planet being stripped of life?
It will always require as much energy to move information across space as it takes to move information across space. If it suddenly takes very little, a lot of interesting stuff happens. It's like how you have to apply a megajoule of energy to a block of steel to make it liquid molten steel; then someone says by a cheap trick of physics they can tap on the steel gently and it's suddenly 1700 degrees and glowing red and flowing. Something very interesting just happened, to say the least; where the fuck did all this energy come from?
Instantaneous entanglement across any distance is akin to snapping your fingers and having magical shit happen. If it's possible, you're going to need a hell of a lot of energy.
You can always send more particles by beaming light there. Though outages are amusing. "Alpha-Centauri station? Yeah, our trasnciever is down. In 379 years there's going to be a service interruption from us, guess we'll have to work from the stock of supplied particles you're sending now, so for a little while half as much data. We'll let you know when it's back up so you know how long the outage is gonna last."
It takes no more energy to move a photon lightyears, but it takes YEARS to move it. If we postulate that there must be a way to make an entanglement occur over 10 lightyears in an instant, rather than moving a photon for 10 years to create that gap; then we would assume that it takes somewhat more energy to make that instant entanglement across 10 lightyears than it does to make it across 10 meters. If we find out this is not true, then something about the way space physically works is VERY different from our understanding, and we could just teleport physical matter with little to no power usage. A discovery like that would obsolete weird entanglement communications.
And really, if you can make it to Alpha-Centauri in any appreciable time (that is, in any amount of time where technology doesn't outpace your transit and send a faster vessel to beat you there), then you're better off sending gap courier drones instead of bothering with the complexities of entangled particles. Realize the entanglement has to be maintained for the long years across the long distances it takes to get a particle from point A to point B; if you can just put a message in a bottle and pop it over there in short order, that's probably better. Be mindful that a 400 year space trip is likely untenable.
Actually from what I hear the DMCA requires immediate carrier response. If they tell the carrier your content is infringing, then your carrier MUST shut it down; it's not their call, legally they must remove the content on claim. Then you can come back and say bullshit, and your carrier can re-instate it, and then it's your legal battle--there's no edit war here, you're now responsible for the content and the carrier by statute is able to legally accept your claim as primary until the court decides who has controlling interest.
All of Card's books, from what I understand, have no real solution. Ender's Game was terrible: there was no sane way to approach the problem at hand, and the books further down the line play on the whole mess. For example, Ender is immortalized as a horrible genocidal maniac who exterminates an entire alien culture... after being tricked into thinking he's playing a computer game, by a race of people who believe the aliens are coming to destroy them, and of course immediately take over all the planets these now-dead aliens had inhabited once they've tricked a small boy into murdering the lot of them. Speaker for the Dead has a lot of strangeness in it but nothing quite so complex, although due to an unstoppable disease they have to cripple a burgeoning culture that they've interfered with. Due to the volatile nature of all this, wouldn't it make sense to nuke the whole planet anyway a la the ending of Ender's Game? Is murder still an option?
Ender's Game is like a third grade reading level, and Orson Scott Card went on a tirade against all his critics claiming that writing prose isn't really important. In his book about Characters and Viewpoint, he even makes a different argument: if you don't write well, nobody is going to figure out what the hell story you're trying to tell.
Ender's Game had a well-developed story, but it was poorly executed. It was like reading a kid's story.
It's very hard to switch light on and off quite that fast without the pulses degrading. You have a switch that can run 32 of these ports, it can do 32 times as much bandwidth as 1 port. Simple?
Instantaneous sub-space communications over infinite distance would be freakishly strange given our current understanding of physics. It would imply that information can travel over great distances with no energy.
No serious scifi reader in their right mind likes Orson Scott Card either; though I must admit his books about HOW to write are amazing, even if his actual writing is shit.
You can only send 1 gigabit across a 1 gigabit link; but if your hardware is fast enough to process 1 terrabit/s, you could send that. We don't have 1Tb links, though there's 10GbE. Also entanglement isn't instant over distance; it's limited by the speed of light, i.e. two particles 1 light year apart take at a minimum a year to entangle. You can do this by entangling two particles together and then moving them apart, or if you find a magic way to entangle two particles that are far apart you can do that but it won't be any faster than speed-of-light.
If you want to cut latency, you have to pre-load entangled particles. If you want to pre-load entangled particles, you need more bandwidth than you're using (to set up; once you've got it, you can ride equillibrium by transmitting newly entangled particles while transmitting data across the entangled ones). If you've got that, though, you can fill an even bigger bucket and then drain it by transmitting at a burst rate higher than the physical link can carry. So a 1Gbit link can store up 10Gbit over 10 seconds, and then burst down 10Gbit in precisely as much time as it takes the processor to shove it down the link--ignoring physical link speed entirely.
It's a little like using a metalmind.
I'm no expert in this, but I dont think you understand whats going on here at all. Flipping one doesn't instantly flip the other. You cant communicate information via entanglement.
Well, I'm no expert in this, but you're wrong. You can't transfer information faster than light; what you can do is transfer an entangled particle at the speed of light, and then tap one particle and read the other to see what happened with it. Across 300 light years, if you manipulate particle A[0}, particle A[1] instantly reflects its new state; however it does take 300 years to get particles A[0] and A[1] 300 light years apart. You can't just wake up and decide to transmit 3 gigabytes of information without 3 gigabytes of entangled particles hanging out across the void already.
Seconded. LiveScribe. If tablets hadn't given up on the stylus and excellent handwriting recognition, I'd say that route too.
Actually I was thinking more of something like that, but with store/drain, depending on how far entanglement goes and how long you can maintain it.
Think about 1 meter entanglement range. You entangle two particles, shift one a meter away. It takes time to move that particle, of course; but once it's entangled, flipping one flips the other instantly.
Bandwidth like this is infinite. If you have 1Gbit/s real bandwidth and can store 3000Gbit of entangled particles stably. and they're stable for 3000 seconds on average, you can eventually build up 3000Gbit of entanglement between two nodes.
Now space these nodes a meter apart down the wire, 1500Gbit on each end relaying, 2km. While there's less than 1Gbit/s in use, store entangled particles. At a point, you have 1500Gbit of bandwidth charge ... and then you can dump 1500Gbit of data straight on the link (if your computer is fast enough to send that to the hardware!) and your burst data rate is 1500Gbit INSTANTANEOUS. It's 1500Gbit in however many cycles it takes to move 1500Gbit from memory onto the output buffer--if it takes 10 cycles to get a bit from RAM onto the "wire" (that's 320 cycles per 32-bit word on a 32-bit bus, which is realistic--random RAM read can be 200-400 cycles to precharge, set RAS, CAS, etc, but sequential can be 10-20 cycles, plus overhead messing with the actual transmit hardware), at 1.5GHz CPU that's 150MHz or 10 seconds to transmit 1500Gbit. 3GHz that's 5 seconds, and with 3GHz quad core and a distributed architecture that's a little over a second--you've achieved nearly 1.5Tbit/s burst with near-zero latency over 2km!
By the time the technology is actually affordable for such use, the range will probably be in the km. That means repeaters entangled across miles and miles. You think we need 1500Gbit/s burst? Saturation will happen often enough to warrant bursting. It'd take 1500 seconds over a 1Gbit link running idle, like 2.5 hours. Probably 2-3 times capacity (2-3 Gbit) entangled store being used to artificially raise peak capacity (when off-peak, i.e. 50% utilization of 1Gbit/s over a few seconds means you can constantly burst, store up 3Gbit and then 3Gbit comes and you transmit it instantly instead of over 3 seconds). and decrease off-peak latency (50% saturation? Store for 50%, use for the other 50%, zero ping!).
All that untapped capacity of a 30% or 70% utilized network will ACTUALLY MAKE IT FASTER. Imagine!
That's ... a lot of waste heat from power usage. Consider a surface temperature of freezing on average (273 kelvin), 1% would be a 2.73 degree change (kelvin, celsius), 0.36% is a degree. Not to mention it radiates out faster than it covers the planet (part of the planet is hot, part is cold, obviously the heat from the hot part radiates out to space partially before it warms the cool part, else the planet would be one uniform temperature), which means in theory cities would be hotter than other places without industrialization. In effect, a packed highway in rush hour should be a very hot place compared to a grassy meadow a half mile away.
All power ends up as waste heat, except hydro and wind and tidal. Geothermal technically doesn't end up as waste heat, but for our limited scope it does (else so does hydro and wind and tidal). Hydro and tidal alters the movement of water; wind alters the movement of wind and weather. While both of these will have major impacts on surface weather patterns if we derive a lot of power from them, they still serve to simply pull heat from the environment and then move it around.
By contrast, solar power attempts to capture sunlight that would otherwise reflect to space. Burning coal or oil or wood releases stored energy (this happens normally, but much more slowly, with wood; we're speeding up the absorption-release cycle of trapping solar energy into wood and then releasing it later by burning it quickly). Nuclear power releases the energy in nuclear material quickly (that fuel's been in the ground for ages, we use it up in a few decades). Geothermal brings heat to the surface as solar does, but from the ground rather than the sky. Even running a diesel or gasoline engine heats the engine, which belches hot exhaust from a hot engine block that must eventually cool down.
Every piece of energy we collect goes into storage which is potential-controlled. This storage is isolated in some way--chemically, for example, or maybe thermally insulated--to prevent it from bleeding off. A battery lets energy flow to equalize its hot (negative) side with its cold (positive) side, releasing the potential difference as waste heat (more heat at higher resistance segments of the pathway). A gasoline engine does the same, allowing hot gases to expand to distribute heat by distributing a concentrated high energy mass (burned fuel exhaust, lots of energy in one place, hence why it's hot), which moves a piston. We store and sometimes utilize (i.e. electricity) these things as something other than heat, but in the end all energy becomes heat when applied.
Unity seems to be a result of "let's copy Apple" and "let's copy Apple." iPhone ui with menus at the top of the screen, completely dissociated from the window they're in (this is great for a single-tasking desktop environment where windows are always maximized; for multi-tasking it sucks, and right now I'm going to move my cursor out of my not-maximized Firefox window and hit the "File" menu in LibreOffice...). Done so horribly clunky and wrong too. Gnome3 at least is nice to work with, though I might go back to Gnome2 if I could tap the top left corner and get an Expose view with virtual desktop browser as in Gnome3.
This is a known hazard of pulling out a study for your own interests: if it falls against you then you MUST suck, and if it falls in your favor well duh.