I searched on PopularScience.com, but I couldn't find the reference to an article I know I read in an issue a couple years back. It had details and schematics on how to build your own EMP bomb, and it was really very easy.
Basically you charge a capacitor, and release the charge in conjunction with... oh wait, forgot about the PATRIOT act... I'll shut up now.
h. Starz or its content delivery providers may install on your hard drive one or more deletion mechanisms that delete Content that is outside the availability period for such Content. This deletion mechanism will be required to be installed on your hard drive in order for you to download any Content. Starz and its content delivery providers may verify such installation pursuant to means designated solely by them.
Additionally:
b. By using the Services or the Content, you occasionally make available to Starz certain non-personally identifiable information, such as the domain name and type your Internet server and browser, which pages of the Site you access, and the length of access. This paragraph of this Agreement explains how Starz uses such information, and how you can restrict the use and collection of non-personally identifiable information from "cookies." A "cookie" is a bit of text information stored on the hard drive of your computer by an Internet web server when you use the Services or access the Content. You can choose not to accept cookies, but in so doing, you may not be able to use the Services or access the Content. Refer to the Help information in your browser or Internet services provider site or software for instructions on how to disable cookies, or to be notified when a cookie is set. Starz may use cookies to track your usage of the Services or the Content, to track your interactions with the Site and to customize the Site. However, Starz will only use information stored in cookies in aggregate form and will not sell, lease, license or share information derived from cookies with any third parties. Starz sometimes uses your non-personally identifiable information to improve the design and content of the Services or the Content, and to personalize your Internet experience. Starz also may use this information in the aggregate to analyze site usage, as well as to offer improved products, programs or services.
Uh huh.
I was actually sort of interested before I read the file deletion bit. Sorry, no one deletes files from my PC except me and the federal investigators.
I wonder if DRM is such a bad thing. Color me naive, but I honestly believe that the end effect of this will be M$oft and Intel killing their own business and opening the door to/real/ competition.
Where a potential market exists, manufacturers and developers will follow. Consumers have dictated their terms already, in fact the wild popularity of such things as P2P, and file sharing etc... are proof of this concept. Who would have thought 10 years ago that the average teen would be intimately familiar with relatively advanced networking concepts, ports, firewalls etc...? The realm that used to belong solely to the socially challenged has become mainstream. Why? So that kids can share their music and files.
When faced with a choice of what new computer to buy, the consumer will opt for the more free, less restrictive one. You doubt? Consider this scenario: Mom and Dad take their 15yo to WalMart to buy a new computer. The 15yo, already knowing and hating DRM, says "I want that Lindows machine. It can do everything that Windows can, and its $200 cheaper." The teen meanwhile in the back of his head is thinking "No DRM, I can fileswap etc.. without any problems." The parents don't care, they just want something the kid can do his homework on and if its $200 cheaper, then that's even better. Now take this scenario and multiply by 30 million. The end result? Microsoft and DRM businesses are forced to either drop DRM or go out of business.
There are massive market forces emerging around music and content creation and sharing, and they will not tolerate restrictions on their freedom of expression. As always, the consumer will dictate the market, not the other way around.
Yes, the population can frequently be led around by the nose, but there is one thing throughout history that has always drawn consumers to protest, pushed emergency legislation, and even started wars: inconvenience. DRM will fail for that simple reason, the consumer/hates/ to be inconvenienced.
In the immortal words of the Dead Kennedys: Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death.
So I say, bring DRM on! Go for it! The consumer market will push such nonsense aside and it will quietly fade away, along with the business who have vested themselves in it.
The real threat is not DRM, it is corrupt legislation like the DMCA. That is where the true battleground is, and we are beginning to see the consumer (finally!) react, and political forces gathering to rationalize and neuter the DMCA.
I am really relieved to hear (read) you say (write) that. I was trying and trying to figure out how a complete orbit could occur, I thought it was just me not understanding his explanation...
Yes. Your analysis of the meteor is correct: work is done. This is why the meteor speeds up *and* heats up on its way down
But that is my point, exactly. If in the case of the meteor work *is* being done, then doesn't gravity thereby violate the conservation of energy?
Your analysis of the man pushing the wall is somewhat correct. The man does no net work, but his muscles do work internally as they continually expand and contract. Hence, man gets hot in a way that a brick never would.
Any yet, if I understand correctly, even though energy is being expended here, if the work function were applied, it would say that it was not.
Your analysis of the orbiting situation is incorrect because the "distance" traveled by the moon is never in the same direction as the gravitational force. Thus, it can never be gravity that does any work.
But isn't that true only according to the work function? Same example as man pushing wall: man swinging rope on a rock. According to the work function, no work is being done, but the man's arm will still get tired.
The author claims that he achieves the same results, but like I said, I don't understand alot of what he is claiming and he glosses over the math part, so I really can't find any proof.
The problem I have with the rock and rope analogy is that if the hypothetical stopped spinning, the rocks would stay at the same distance, so I agree, in this case no energy (perhaps a bad word, but for lack of a better I am stuck with it) is required. If, however the moon stopped circling the earth, it would immediately be "drawn in" and crash. Because of this, I don't think the rock and rope is a fair analogy. Perhaps two rocks connected by a spring would be a better one, but I am still confused.
I actually have a (rudimentary) understanding of the math involved, my problem isn't with the math itself, it is with the application and the definitions.
Power is defined as Work over Time, Work = Force * Distance (please correct me if I am wrong).
Applying this function, it is relatively easy to calculate (for example) the amount of power (energy) required to move a 10kg weight 10m in 10s.
But here is where (for me) the whole thing falls apart. Let say you have a man pushing against a wall as hard as he can for an hour. The wall hasn't moved, but the man has expended a great deal of "energy". In this situation, is seems like the work function breaks down. It seems like the same thing is happening with gravity and orbits. It seems to me that it requires a great deal of "energy" to hold the moon in orbit, but because of the way the work function is applied, it comes out to nothing.
There is probably a problem with language and semantics here, becuase Work, Force and Energy have very specific definitions in physics, and I am not sure what the proper word is to describe the "energy" of gravitation (or magnetism for that matter).
As the other poster mentioned, there are two main current theories attempting to explain gravity, Einstein's and the quantum "graviton" theory. Of the two, only the "graviton" theory seems like an actual explanation to me, Einstein's still seems like a mathematical model (like Newton but much more encompassing and complex), not an explanation.
Also, the zero'ing out of "gravitational energy" in the Kinetic example (potential energy) you gave also falls apart when you consider an object coming in from outside of the system. The rolling a rock up a hill concept is fine as long as the rock starts out at the bottom of the hill, but what if the rock comes in from space? (A meteor). Here we have a classic example of how gravity MUST be considered to perform work. A meteor is drifting along it's merry way, happens by the earth and is "sucked in". It comes down and strikes the earth. How, in this scenerio, is gravity not doing work, expending energy (power)? This is a classic Force * Distance scenerio. So if that is true, how can gravity be considered to be expending energy in this scenerio, but not on an orbiting body?
Hmm, but my problem is with gravity itself, I have never seen any theory that comes close to explaining the phenomena, but this seems to be largely ignored in modern physics (at least what I have read). The massive amount of energy required to hold the moon in an orbit and the consequential violation of the law of conservation of matter/energy seems to be given a wink and a nod, and then ignored. Einstein and Newton both had mathematical models, but no actual explanation (and no, Einstein's "warping of space-time" is not an explanation, it is a model).
The justification for ignoring this seems to be because of a weird misapplication of the work function where everyone has convinced themselves that even though tremendous energy must be required to hold the moon in orbit, no work is "actually" being done. Am I wrong?
Then I have been reading a book called "The Final Theory" which claims to be able to solve this problem, but the author really just glosses over the explanation of how orbits happen with his "Expansion Theory", and I can't make any sense of it.
In elementary school (and even high school still!) we are taught that gravity is the result of the earth spinning, which is clearly nonsense.
Then we are taught that it is a mysterious attractive force between all matter that descreases with the square of the distances in Newton's model. Where this force comes from, or the energy required to power it is just glossed over.
Then we are taught that no, really it is all just relative, that matter warps space and time, and the "heavy marble on a sheet of rubber" is how it "really" works, but because the math involved in this is so frightening, everyone (including NASA) will just stick with Good 'ole Newton and Kepler.
So I am confused.
I would love for a physicst to please explain this to me.
Does anyone realize that in order to "allow" competition this forces Verizon to sub-lease out their phone lines at BELOW cost?
This is a return to Monopoly? Ridiculous. Verizon was being forced by the FCC to basically hand out cash to any telecom company that wanted it. This has obvious results, Verizon won't invest in those lines, since it is LOSING MONEY.
The only realm left to Verizon (other than wireless) is the broadband market. Verizon has invested billions of dollars in DSL and in fiber to expand the reach of broadband to 80% of the homes in the US. Now they are deploying FTTP which will give us data rates in the 100s of megabits.
So there are two options, either regulate them into non-existance and force them to sell bandwidth to competitors who have invested NOTHING, or to let them reap the rewards of the capital they have invested and to keep the muddling hands of the government out of broadband regulation.
Look, just tell Mr. Gates what your problem with the contract is, I'm sure he'll be understanding. I mean, its not like he ever fired a guy for posting pictures of a bunch of Macs or anything. Oh wait...
This is a standard ploy used by many companies. Basically, they are trying to get what they can for free. If they ae truly interested in hiring you, they will be willing to strike the language. Otherwise, believe me, you do NOT want to work for that company.
Consider... in your off time you decide to fix a kernel bug in 2.6. According to the language of that contract, you would need to notify your employer about what you did, and basically hand them over the copyright for the code that you added to the linux kernel.
Uh... just say "No".
Slashdot Mirror
42
Now if we could only figure out what the question was...
(obligatory Douglas Adams reference, I apologise)
I searched on PopularScience.com, but I couldn't find the reference to an article I know I read in an issue a couple years back. It had details and schematics on how to build your own EMP bomb, and it was really very easy.
Basically you charge a capacitor, and release the charge in conjunction with... oh wait, forgot about the PATRIOT act... I'll shut up now.
We would just bomb them
h. Starz or its content delivery providers may install on your hard drive one or more deletion mechanisms that delete Content that is outside the availability period for such Content. This deletion mechanism will be required to be installed on your hard drive in order for you to download any Content. Starz and its content delivery providers may verify such installation pursuant to means designated solely by them.
Additionally:
b. By using the Services or the Content, you occasionally make available to Starz certain non-personally identifiable information, such as the domain name and type your Internet server and browser, which pages of the Site you access, and the length of access. This paragraph of this Agreement explains how Starz uses such information, and how you can restrict the use and collection of non-personally identifiable information from "cookies." A "cookie" is a bit of text information stored on the hard drive of your computer by an Internet web server when you use the Services or access the Content. You can choose not to accept cookies, but in so doing, you may not be able to use the Services or access the Content. Refer to the Help information in your browser or Internet services provider site or software for instructions on how to disable cookies, or to be notified when a cookie is set. Starz may use cookies to track your usage of the Services or the Content, to track your interactions with the Site and to customize the Site. However, Starz will only use information stored in cookies in aggregate form and will not sell, lease, license or share information derived from cookies with any third parties. Starz sometimes uses your non-personally identifiable information to improve the design and content of the Services or the Content, and to personalize your Internet experience. Starz also may use this information in the aggregate to analyze site usage, as well as to offer improved products, programs or services.
Uh huh.
I was actually sort of interested before I read the file deletion bit. Sorry, no one deletes files from my PC except me and the federal investigators.
I wonder if DRM is such a bad thing. Color me naive, but I honestly believe that the end effect of this will be M$oft and Intel killing their own business and opening the door to /real/ competition.
/hates/ to be inconvenienced.
Where a potential market exists, manufacturers and developers will follow. Consumers have dictated their terms already, in fact the wild popularity of such things as P2P, and file sharing etc... are proof of this concept. Who would have thought 10 years ago that the average teen would be intimately familiar with relatively advanced networking concepts, ports, firewalls etc...? The realm that used to belong solely to the socially challenged has become mainstream. Why? So that kids can share their music and files.
When faced with a choice of what new computer to buy, the consumer will opt for the more free, less restrictive one. You doubt? Consider this scenario: Mom and Dad take their 15yo to WalMart to buy a new computer. The 15yo, already knowing and hating DRM, says "I want that Lindows machine. It can do everything that Windows can, and its $200 cheaper." The teen meanwhile in the back of his head is thinking "No DRM, I can fileswap etc.. without any problems." The parents don't care, they just want something the kid can do his homework on and if its $200 cheaper, then that's even better. Now take this scenario and multiply by 30 million. The end result? Microsoft and DRM businesses are forced to either drop DRM or go out of business.
There are massive market forces emerging around music and content creation and sharing, and they will not tolerate restrictions on their freedom of expression. As always, the consumer will dictate the market, not the other way around.
Yes, the population can frequently be led around by the nose, but there is one thing throughout history that has always drawn consumers to protest, pushed emergency legislation, and even started wars: inconvenience. DRM will fail for that simple reason, the consumer
In the immortal words of the Dead Kennedys: Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death.
So I say, bring DRM on! Go for it! The consumer market will push such nonsense aside and it will quietly fade away, along with the business who have vested themselves in it.
The real threat is not DRM, it is corrupt legislation like the DMCA. That is where the true battleground is, and we are beginning to see the consumer (finally!) react, and political forces gathering to rationalize and neuter the DMCA.
I am really relieved to hear (read) you say (write) that. I was trying and trying to figure out how a complete orbit could occur, I thought it was just me not understanding his explanation...
Yes. Your analysis of the meteor is correct: work is done. This is why the meteor speeds up *and* heats up on its way down
But that is my point, exactly. If in the case of the meteor work *is* being done, then doesn't gravity thereby violate the conservation of energy?
Your analysis of the man pushing the wall is somewhat correct. The man does no net work, but his muscles do work internally as they continually expand and contract. Hence, man gets hot in a way that a brick never would.
Any yet, if I understand correctly, even though energy is being expended here, if the work function were applied, it would say that it was not.
Your analysis of the orbiting situation is incorrect because the "distance" traveled by the moon is never in the same direction as the gravitational force. Thus, it can never be gravity that does any work.
But isn't that true only according to the work function? Same example as man pushing wall: man swinging rope on a rock. According to the work function, no work is being done, but the man's arm will still get tired.
The author claims that he achieves the same results, but like I said, I don't understand alot of what he is claiming and he glosses over the math part, so I really can't find any proof.
The problem I have with the rock and rope analogy is that if the hypothetical stopped spinning, the rocks would stay at the same distance, so I agree, in this case no energy (perhaps a bad word, but for lack of a better I am stuck with it) is required. If, however the moon stopped circling the earth, it would immediately be "drawn in" and crash. Because of this, I don't think the rock and rope is a fair analogy. Perhaps two rocks connected by a spring would be a better one, but I am still confused.
I actually have a (rudimentary) understanding of the math involved, my problem isn't with the math itself, it is with the application and the definitions.
Power is defined as Work over Time, Work = Force * Distance (please correct me if I am wrong).
Applying this function, it is relatively easy to calculate (for example) the amount of power (energy) required to move a 10kg weight 10m in 10s.
But here is where (for me) the whole thing falls apart. Let say you have a man pushing against a wall as hard as he can for an hour. The wall hasn't moved, but the man has expended a great deal of "energy". In this situation, is seems like the work function breaks down. It seems like the same thing is happening with gravity and orbits. It seems to me that it requires a great deal of "energy" to hold the moon in orbit, but because of the way the work function is applied, it comes out to nothing.
There is probably a problem with language and semantics here, becuase Work, Force and Energy have very specific definitions in physics, and I am not sure what the proper word is to describe the "energy" of gravitation (or magnetism for that matter).
As the other poster mentioned, there are two main current theories attempting to explain gravity, Einstein's and the quantum "graviton" theory. Of the two, only the "graviton" theory seems like an actual explanation to me, Einstein's still seems like a mathematical model (like Newton but much more encompassing and complex), not an explanation.
Also, the zero'ing out of "gravitational energy" in the Kinetic example (potential energy) you gave also falls apart when you consider an object coming in from outside of the system. The rolling a rock up a hill concept is fine as long as the rock starts out at the bottom of the hill, but what if the rock comes in from space? (A meteor). Here we have a classic example of how gravity MUST be considered to perform work. A meteor is drifting along it's merry way, happens by the earth and is "sucked in". It comes down and strikes the earth. How, in this scenerio, is gravity not doing work, expending energy (power)? This is a classic Force * Distance scenerio. So if that is true, how can gravity be considered to be expending energy in this scenerio, but not on an orbiting body?
Do you see where I am confused?
Hmm, but my problem is with gravity itself, I have never seen any theory that comes close to explaining the phenomena, but this seems to be largely ignored in modern physics (at least what I have read). The massive amount of energy required to hold the moon in an orbit and the consequential violation of the law of conservation of matter/energy seems to be given a wink and a nod, and then ignored. Einstein and Newton both had mathematical models, but no actual explanation (and no, Einstein's "warping of space-time" is not an explanation, it is a model).
The justification for ignoring this seems to be because of a weird misapplication of the work function where everyone has convinced themselves that even though tremendous energy must be required to hold the moon in orbit, no work is "actually" being done. Am I wrong?
Then I have been reading a book called "The Final Theory" which claims to be able to solve this problem, but the author really just glosses over the explanation of how orbits happen with his "Expansion Theory", and I can't make any sense of it.
In elementary school (and even high school still!) we are taught that gravity is the result of the earth spinning, which is clearly nonsense.
Then we are taught that it is a mysterious attractive force between all matter that descreases with the square of the distances in Newton's model. Where this force comes from, or the energy required to power it is just glossed over.
Then we are taught that no, really it is all just relative, that matter warps space and time, and the "heavy marble on a sheet of rubber" is how it "really" works, but because the math involved in this is so frightening, everyone (including NASA) will just stick with Good 'ole Newton and Kepler.
So I am confused.
I would love for a physicst to please explain this to me.
does stuff blow up?
All of the devices were running Windows CE
Does anyone realize that in order to "allow" competition this forces Verizon to sub-lease out their phone lines at BELOW cost?
This is a return to Monopoly? Ridiculous. Verizon was being forced by the FCC to basically hand out cash to any telecom company that wanted it. This has obvious results, Verizon won't invest in those lines, since it is LOSING MONEY.
The only realm left to Verizon (other than wireless) is the broadband market. Verizon has invested billions of dollars in DSL and in fiber to expand the reach of broadband to 80% of the homes in the US. Now they are deploying FTTP which will give us data rates in the 100s of megabits.
So there are two options, either regulate them into non-existance and force them to sell bandwidth to competitors who have invested NOTHING, or to let them reap the rewards of the capital they have invested and to keep the muddling hands of the government out of broadband regulation.
when it is incredibly obvious to anyone that Halflife is the Best Game Ever.
Look, just tell Mr. Gates what your problem with the contract is, I'm sure he'll be understanding. I mean, its not like he ever fired a guy for posting pictures of a bunch of Macs or anything. Oh wait...
This is a standard ploy used by many companies. Basically, they are trying to get what they can for free. If they ae truly interested in hiring you, they will be willing to strike the language. Otherwise, believe me, you do NOT want to work for that company. Consider... in your off time you decide to fix a kernel bug in 2.6. According to the language of that contract, you would need to notify your employer about what you did, and basically hand them over the copyright for the code that you added to the linux kernel. Uh... just say "No".
Whats the standard response to republicans peeping at your internal files?
Assuming you have the right autoclave. Go here for some recepies.