That was further sarcasm. I experienced even fewer problems with my Apple II then with my first PC running DOS. The Compucolor II, although a bit noisy when booted (ba-DUMM is the sound I still hear in my imagination today when I think back to turning on the big toggle switch), was probably even more reliable. I wouldn't be surprised if it still worked - wherever it's gotten to.
Obviously, newer computers can also do a lot more than computers back then. However, that functionality comes at a cost - complexity. If you've never read it, I recommend "Why Things Bite Back" by Edward Tenner. It impacted me in the same way that Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" did.
Technology can break down. Maybe rarer as the farther one advances, but I still bet there are mishaps.
Yeah, because Windows crashes so much less often than DOS did. Going back even farther, I remember that my Apple II used to blue screen on me all the time. My Compucolor II would crash even before I turned it on!;)
Unfortunately, you're forgetting to factor in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Although energy will remain constant, free energy will decrease. Eventually, the universe will suffer a cold death. How sad.
However, that 25% figure ignores the hydrogen that gets trapped in black holes, etc. Still, I think you're right that we will still have plenty of hydrogen in 100 billion years. (I don't know, but I think the black hole absorption of hydrogen to be less than the consumption of hydrogen due to fusion.) Peak hydrogen indeed!
I just wouldn't call that "fast", even by (currently) cosmic scales. For example, I'm 37. If you told me I could get to some destination in 74 years (for example), I wouldn't call that "fast".
Now, here's a real calculation, albeit one that's still based on completely unfounded assumptions: if the decay is exponential, then 100 billion years from now (when the universe is apprxomately 114 billion years old), there will be approximately 0.75^(114/14) or 9.6% of the hydrogen left.
On the other hand, if the decay is linear, we'll have -104% hydrogen left, so we'll have to fuse anti-hydrogen! (Yes, that's just a joke.)
Where I'm getting is that the universe has a finite budget of hydrogen and keeps using it fast. (Well, "fast" by cosmic scales.) And then some of it gets buried in black holes and the like too. So planning to have main sequence stars in 100 billion years, is sorta like planning to still be using the oil in the middle east by then: chances are it will have run horribly thin, long time before that.
Bah, you Alpha Centaurians and your "peak hydrogen" alarmism! But seriously, we're not burning through Hydrogen fast even by cosmic scales. The universe still has 75% of its original hydrogen left. Presumably, the rate at which we'll use it will decrease as we use it up. However, you have a valid point that by 100 billion years (~8x the current age), there's a good chance that the 75% figure might be more like 7.5%. (I'm completely making up that last figure.)
I'll admit that after I typed it, I realized that it might initially lead you to the wrong assumption. I kept it anyway, as I thought it might be enjoyable.;)
I live in an area some would assume that about, and believe me, there's enough of a stigma here about racism that people would think twice about frequenting such a place.
Then you probably don't live in an area where people in white robes hand out "information" to cars at intersections. Trust me, such places still exist. (Specifically, I'm thinking of Forsythe County, Georgia. Although anomalous at this point, they are definitely not unique.)
Why do you think the law changed? Because enough people felt that this attitude was wrong. It didn't change without support (and a lot of work and sacrifice on the part of blacks).
Absolutely. However, although enough people in charge felt that the attitude was wrong to get the laws passed, you also had people in charge at the state level who were desperately fighting against these laws. Do you think that attitudes there would have changed by now without the civil rights laws?
However, I'd like to know who the racists are, if they're so stupid as to advertise it. It would make choosing to avoid them much easier.
I can appreciate where you're coming from. However, I believe that you overestimate some of our fellow countrymen (and women).
Perhaps you're not familiar with certain regions of the country. In a many regions of the country (I grew up near some), if it were legal to put a "Whites Only" sign up, it would still improve business. Media attention to it would help business even more. Don Imus got fired because he was on a national show with national advertisers. Furthermore, in this arena public perception has definitely trailed the law. If the law hadn't changed do you think that public perception would have? If so, under what basis?
White Only signs attracted customers because it was not social suicide to be openly racist.
There are still places where that'd be true today, if it were allowed. Very likely, it'd still be true in most of those places where it was true during that era if laws weren't written to combat it. My point was that the free market does not automagically cure all problems. Sometimes it needs a little help.
Well, there is a law (or razor or something) about how it's impossible to distinguish parody of the Right with actual writing from the Right, but I did feel that this was a bit over the top even for that! No offense taken.
Also, I trust (and sincerely hope) that my post was marked insightful because my satire exposed how ridiculous the argument was that I responded to. Obviously, the free market does not cure all that ails us.
You must have some happy-go-lucky view of history if you think people were somehow shamed by the media into giving people of color civil rights.
And you must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of Slashdot viewers if you thought anyone would take what I wrote seriously. I almost added a final sentence stating that this was only intended as satire, but I decided that such a sentence would insult the intelligence of Slashdot. Do you seriously believe that anyone could think this was how civil rights were won?!?
I had to see if you were lying or not, and unfortunately, you weren't. The searching technique relies on partial matching, so "paris" is found in "comparison", and an OR match is used to "hilton" is not required. Thankfully, searching on "paris hilton" in quotes returns no hits.
If I didn't hear chemistry explained in wrestling terms, would I have ever understood it? Would a video of some college kid explaining it be screened from ScienceHack?
A good question, but as I understand it, such videos would be welcome - as long as they were accurate and of good quality. That's a somewhat sticky measuring stick, however, as what one scientist might call "simplifying", another might call "dumbing down" or just "wrong". I suspect they will not be overzealous about such screening, however.
That's exactly how civil rights were won in the 50's and 60's. A few, rare people had these "Whites Only" signs on their doors, and then once the media made others aware of that, no one patronized those stores. After that, those establishments took down those signs because they realized that no one would eat at a restaurant that served "whites only". If it worked then, surely it would still work today!
"Seen backward through the end of the 21st Century, our achievements will seem very primitive. They thought that it was something that they got a few tens of thousands of otherwise hierarchically disorganised people around the world to cooperate on a single act of limited purpose legislation, regulating the share of software," the 22nd Century will say. "How quaint." But it was the beginning of a joining-together of communities of affect in the global organisation of power, the beginning of affiliation rather than territorial location or political domination, as the source of legitimacy for legislation. It was the beginning of the idea that cooperative private agreement can substantially oust public law institutions without challenging the legitimacy of the Governments that participated in making the public law. And it provides an escape from the moral dilemma presented by the myth of endlessly acquisitive homo economicus, the little homunculus of economic dream, the independent entity with the exogenously derived preference schedule, competing with sharp elbows in the market against every other homunculus economicus seeking only the same narrow benefit off the same asocial schedule of what I need today.
I'll admit to being wrong about the drilling, as I'm totally ignorant about it and was just using "common sense" (very dangerous). However, what has gotten a lot of press lately is the opening up of the previously mythical "northwest passage". There's been a lot of jockeying about who would be able to get what profit out of it.
Repeat every 6 years until the whole thing melts...
Since everyone else is picking on the second half of that sentence, I'll pick on the first half.:) The reason there's so much recent fighting over it is that the Arctic Ocean becomes more valuable after the "whole thing melts" and not less valuable. It will be easier to access the oil, and there are shipping rights involved.
But I have no idea what you mean by that statement. It sounds vaguely like a dig at the IPCC, except for the fact that it's complete nonsense. They've never made such a comment, or anything close to such a comment. Was this meant as a joke? If so, could you explain?
In case it wasn't clear, I did not write the summary nor the article that the summary references. I was just pointing out that, regardless of how one feels about DRM or TPM and what is being secured against, the concept that a presentation could undermine security implies a security based on obscurity, which is no security at all.
If the chip is secure, then no mere presentation can undermine its security. If it's not secure, then there's no security to undermine. Don't shoot the messenger.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean one of them happens to be the second nearest star to us. The nearest star is a main sequence star. ;)
That was further sarcasm. I experienced even fewer problems with my Apple II then with my first PC running DOS. The Compucolor II, although a bit noisy when booted (ba-DUMM is the sound I still hear in my imagination today when I think back to turning on the big toggle switch), was probably even more reliable. I wouldn't be surprised if it still worked - wherever it's gotten to.
Obviously, newer computers can also do a lot more than computers back then. However, that functionality comes at a cost - complexity. If you've never read it, I recommend "Why Things Bite Back" by Edward Tenner. It impacted me in the same way that Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" did.
Unfortunately, you're forgetting to factor in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Although energy will remain constant, free energy will decrease. Eventually, the universe will suffer a cold death. How sad.
However, that 25% figure ignores the hydrogen that gets trapped in black holes, etc. Still, I think you're right that we will still have plenty of hydrogen in 100 billion years. (I don't know, but I think the black hole absorption of hydrogen to be less than the consumption of hydrogen due to fusion.) Peak hydrogen indeed!
You should read Hewligan's response (in case you miss it).
I just wouldn't call that "fast", even by (currently) cosmic scales. For example, I'm 37. If you told me I could get to some destination in 74 years (for example), I wouldn't call that "fast".
Now, here's a real calculation, albeit one that's still based on completely unfounded assumptions: if the decay is exponential, then 100 billion years from now (when the universe is apprxomately 114 billion years old), there will be approximately 0.75^(114/14) or 9.6% of the hydrogen left.
On the other hand, if the decay is linear, we'll have -104% hydrogen left, so we'll have to fuse anti-hydrogen! (Yes, that's just a joke.)
I'll admit that after I typed it, I realized that it might initially lead you to the wrong assumption. I kept it anyway, as I thought it might be enjoyable. ;)
Perhaps you're not familiar with certain regions of the country. In a many regions of the country (I grew up near some), if it were legal to put a "Whites Only" sign up, it would still improve business. Media attention to it would help business even more. Don Imus got fired because he was on a national show with national advertisers. Furthermore, in this arena public perception has definitely trailed the law. If the law hadn't changed do you think that public perception would have? If so, under what basis?
Well, there is a law (or razor or something) about how it's impossible to distinguish parody of the Right with actual writing from the Right, but I did feel that this was a bit over the top even for that! No offense taken.
Also, I trust (and sincerely hope) that my post was marked insightful because my satire exposed how ridiculous the argument was that I responded to. Obviously, the free market does not cure all that ails us.
And you must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of Slashdot viewers if you thought anyone would take what I wrote seriously. I almost added a final sentence stating that this was only intended as satire, but I decided that such a sentence would insult the intelligence of Slashdot. Do you seriously believe that anyone could think this was how civil rights were won?!?
I had to see if you were lying or not, and unfortunately, you weren't. The searching technique relies on partial matching, so "paris" is found in "comparison", and an OR match is used to "hilton" is not required. Thankfully, searching on "paris hilton" in quotes returns no hits.
A good question, but as I understand it, such videos would be welcome - as long as they were accurate and of good quality. That's a somewhat sticky measuring stick, however, as what one scientist might call "simplifying", another might call "dumbing down" or just "wrong". I suspect they will not be overzealous about such screening, however.
That's exactly how civil rights were won in the 50's and 60's. A few, rare people had these "Whites Only" signs on their doors, and then once the media made others aware of that, no one patronized those stores. After that, those establishments took down those signs because they realized that no one would eat at a restaurant that served "whites only". If it worked then, surely it would still work today!
I'll admit to being wrong about the drilling, as I'm totally ignorant about it and was just using "common sense" (very dangerous). However, what has gotten a lot of press lately is the opening up of the previously mythical "northwest passage". There's been a lot of jockeying about who would be able to get what profit out of it.
The reason there's so much recent fighting over it is that the Arctic Ocean becomes more valuable after the "whole thing melts" and not less valuable. It will be easier to access the oil, and there are shipping rights involved.
But I have no idea what you mean by that statement. It sounds vaguely like a dig at the IPCC, except for the fact that it's complete nonsense. They've never made such a comment, or anything close to such a comment. Was this meant as a joke? If so, could you explain?
In case it wasn't clear, I did not write the summary nor the article that the summary references. I was just pointing out that, regardless of how one feels about DRM or TPM and what is being secured against, the concept that a presentation could undermine security implies a security based on obscurity, which is no security at all.
If the chip is secure, then no mere presentation can undermine its security. If it's not secure, then there's no security to undermine. Don't shoot the messenger.