My suspicion is that you would want to detonate the bomb some distance above the asteroid; the heat would cause the surface of the asteroid to vaporize, and the gas jetted from the surface would shove the asteroid off course.
Empty space varies as R-cubed, and the spherical effects tend to degrade as 1 over R-squared.
It doesn't take much of an R to make that asteroid look like a tiny, insignificant needle in the vast, overwhelming haystack of empty space.
In the case of an extremely large object, probably one in 100, the missile might have to contain a nuclear warhead.
On earth, a nuclear weapon causes damage via its atmospheric shock wave - it's the motion of the air that causes buildings to fall down [or implode, or whatever].
Do we even know how a hunk of rock would react to the introduction of a bunch of alpha particles/gamma rays/x-rays/infrared radiation/etc? How would the the crystalline structure of the rock be affected? What models do we have that indicate the rock would shatter from an internal heat differential, rather than merely glowing very bright red for a while [assuming the rock even chose to absorb the heat energy in the first place, rather than just deflecting it off into the void of outer space]?
By contrast, underground detonations of nuclear devices are very benign events, and release vastly less energy than a small earthquake or a small volcanic event.
It's only the gaseous shock wave of an atmospheric detonation that causes damage to humans & their metropolitan areas - in the vacuum of outer space, with no atmosphere [i.e. with no gas, hence no gaseous shock wave], a nuclear detonation might not be that big of a deal.
You guys are all worried about anonymity and accountability [usually referred to simply as "authentication"] from the server's point of view, as the server looks at the various clients it interacts with.
The flip side of all of this is authentication from the client's point of view when the client looks at all the servers it might potentially choose to interact with.
If you're a client without an IP address, and you send out a DHCP packet, how do you "know" that the DHCP replies you receive are genuine, and not phishes?
If you're a client that hasn't cached every possible name resolution on the planet, and if you send out a DNS query, how do you "know" that the DNS replies you receive are not phishious replies directing you to phishious servers?
As far as I know, there are no "trusted" mathematical algorithms for authentication that do not require a central repository of known authentication/encryption keys [typically very large prime numbers], and a willingness & agreement on everyone's part to refer to that central authority as authoritative [and even there, everyone has to trust that their apparent interactions with that central authority have not themselves been phished].
An algorithm that provided for non-centralized "authentication" [if such an algorithm is even capable of existing] could very well be the mathematical breakthrough of the century.
"In the Privacy Statement of Windows Update Microsoft grants itself fairly far-reaching rights. Thus the information collected by the Redmond-based behemoth includes the computer make and model, version information for the operating system, browser, and any other Microsoft software for which updates might be available, Plug&Play ID numbers of hardware devices, region and language setting, Globally Unique Identifier (GUID), Product ID and Product Key, BIOS name, revision number, and revision date"
There are what - like a billion or so computers in the world running an M$FT operating system?
And e.g. Windows 2000 is now up to something like 125 or 150 Critical Updates since SP4?
And they're keeping track of all of that data?
That's a database that would make the NSA green with envy.
Can SQLServer handle a load like that?
Or would you be looking at something specialized, like what National Cash Register built for Wal-Mart?
Kentucky is considering two bills that would give explicit financial incentives to math and science students and teachers. The first bill would provide cash incentives to schools to run AP math and science classes, and cash scholarships to students who did well on AP math and science exams.
You ended your original comment by saying: If we could use ordinary cell phones, it would be ideal for everyone. Is there an off-the-shelf solution that could boost regular cellular signals in our bomb shelter?
Again, as I mentioned above, if you want to go the route of "regular cellular signals", then I'd take a long, hard look at Wilson Electronics [or an equivalent competitor]:
The interconnections are made with RG-6 [RG-58] coaxial cable, which is possibly the easiest cable to work with known to mankind [let's face it, a retarded person could be taught to crimp F-Type connectors onto the end of RG-6 cable, and you can get the parts & tools at any Radio Shack, Lowes, or Home Depot in the United States], and their prices just strike me as eminently reasonable [given the functionality you'd be gaining by installing their equipment].
On the other hand, if you want to stick with PTT, then there are PTT amplifiers on the market, as well.
I assume you meant "$300 - $1000", but for a communications device that is meant to be used by tens [and possibly hundreds] of people, in a business setting, that strikes me as decidedly inexpensive.
Or maybe I just haven't been keeping up with telecomm prices these days [isn't the Apple iPhone supposed to start at $499.99?].
PS: The real "expense" will be the time you invest on ladders above hung ceilings, or in attics, or crawling around basement crawl spaces, pulling RG-6 coaxial cable.
[Or paying the illegal aliens to do it for you...]
Spend some time at MIT or CalTech and don't go there unless you actually enjoy the environment.
Carnegie Mellon == Pittsburgh == UGH.
MIT == Boston == YUCK.
Caltech == Pasadena == BLECCH.
The homeschooling movement needs to graduate to college - I think I might rather remain illiterate & innumerate than spend four years of my life in any of those hellholes.
And don't get me started on the insanity of spending $50,000+ per annum for the thrill of being miserable.
A place to discuss contract terms, get recommendations for legal help, advice on whether to go LLC or C-corp - or one of the million other questions that come up.
A fellow named "Robert A. Cooke" has written several easy-reading tax law/accountancy books, very much in the mould of what you might call "The Idiot's Guide[s] to Teaching Yourself Corporate Tax Law in About 24 Minutes Flat":
Doing Business Tax-Free: Perfectly Legal Techniques to Reduce or Eliminate Your Federal Business Taxes, 2nd Edition
April 23, 2001 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0471418218/
Be aware, though, that Congress has a bad habit of changing the "laws" about every five minutes [and dittoes as regards the IRS & the "regulations"], so at any one point in time, no single person on the entire planet is entirely certain of the precise state of all the laws and all the regulations at that very moment.
But I'd recommend Cooke as a good place to start to get an overview of the big picture.
Well, say you have a server with a 5 user license.
And on that server you want to install five virtual servers, each with a five user license.
And on each of those five virtual servers, you want to install five virtual servers, each with a five user license [and so on, and so on...].
Will the thing run [without complaining] if you do all of this with the same [identical] copy of the same [identical] 5 user license?
Or will it balk, and require you to purchase [e.g.]
5 X 5 X 5 = 125
user licenses?
And in each case, will the ambient Active Directory be able to sense each of the [embedded] virtual Active Directories [and catalog their "virtual" license keys], or will the ambient Active Directory be oblivious to the [embedded] virtual Active Directories?
Malaria would be a forgotten disease if the ecopagans hadn't outlawed DDT.
Tens of millions of human beings [typically brown & black, and suffering in the most politically correct of third world cesspools] die every year because of our arrogant and narcissistic obsession with this pagan religion.
Elton John helps raise money for Gore
September 20, 2000
Web posted at: 9:40 AM EDT (1340 GMT)
ATHERTON, Calif. (Reuters) - Flamboyant rock star Elton John, making his first foray into American politics after three decades of performing in the United States, endorsed Vice President Al Gore at a ritzy Silicon Valley fund-raiser.
John, the entertainer at a $10,000-a-plate dinner Tuesday, began his set with "Your Song." But before his next number, he showed his political stripes to the business leaders of America's technological mecca...
The fund-raiser, at the home of Novell Corp. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, raised $3.25 million for the Democratic National Committee...
Dr. Eric Schmidt Chairman of the Executive Committee and Chief Executive Officer
Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin recruited Eric Schmidt from Novell, where he led that company's strategic planning, management and technology development as chairman and CEO...
I work for a POS dealer, and we thought about using this type of machine for our terminals. In the long run for us, it would actually cost us money, since we make most of our money on support and maintenance.
...please mode this as hilarious.
Frankly it's a shame that Taco hasn't added a category of "+1 tragicomical": This one little comment says more about business models and business ethics in the 21st century than you'd be taught in a decade at Wharton or Harvard Biz.
Intentionally convincing [i.e. "conning"] your customer to purchase the wrong solution [undoubtedly at a loss, i.e. as a "loss leader"] - a solution that is, furthermore, INTENTIONALLY CRIPPLED - so that you can recoup costs and achieve your profit in the future on "support and maintenance" calls?
The engine we currently use at my fortune 500 company sucks. I mean it is the worst. I would rather have a blindfold on with stumps for hands trying to type in an estimation of the internal IP address than use our search engine. That said, I have been told that we investigated using "Google Technology" although my superiors soon found that it wasn't at all better than what we already had. And so I've heard of a few others that have doubted Google's ability to dominate in a closed domain. They are clearly the winners in an open domain internet search but I haven't seen anyone take advantage of it as well internally... yet.
Closed domains have this thing called "Access Rights" - typically governed by either Novell Directory Services, or Microsoft Active Directory.
By and large, most enterprises don't want the janitor to be able to get on a kiosk terminal and surf the local search engine until he arrives at the document entitled FISCAL_YEAR_BRIBES_PAID_TO_MEMBERS_OF_THE_LOCAL_ZO NING_BOARD.DOC - that's the kind of thing that only the most elite of the grand poo-bahs are allowed to access.
So a "closed domain" document spider is gonna have to be granted Administrator/Supervisory rights to the authentication infrastructure [which is a HUGE security risk in and of itself], and then it's gonna have to keep track of the pertinent access control lists before deciding whether or not individual users have the right to view search results.
And if, as is typical, you've got four or five different authentication infrastructures in an enterprise [Novell Directory Services, Microsoft Active Directory, Sun iPlanet Directory Services, Oracle Internet Directory Services, etc etc etc], and if they aren't all tied together in some kinduva coherent LDAP framework, then that's just a massively complex project to even think about attempting to undertake.
Courts and prosecutors have a responsibility to deal with that reality. Certainly the uncertainity injected into all proceedings by that fact is yet another reason why the state should not commit homicide of people it thinks are killers.
If you must posit, as an hypothesis, that we are a nation of liars, then any further discusssion is moot.
Necessarily liberty can flourish only amongst men of good will; conversely, it will always wither and die when granted to liars and thieves.
Slashdot Mirror
My suspicion is that you would want to detonate the bomb some distance above the asteroid; the heat would cause the surface of the asteroid to vaporize, and the gas jetted from the surface would shove the asteroid off course.
Empty space varies as R-cubed, and the spherical effects tend to degrade as 1 over R-squared.
It doesn't take much of an R to make that asteroid look like a tiny, insignificant needle in the vast, overwhelming haystack of empty space.
Cf Derbyshire's critique of Whedon & the "nest of Reavers".
This is just more evidence of the vast bear conspiracy that's mauling our government from the inside out.
Not only are the Bears breeding like rabbits, but now the Bear SUV's are causing global warming on Mars!
In the case of an extremely large object, probably one in 100, the missile might have to contain a nuclear warhead.
On earth, a nuclear weapon causes damage via its atmospheric shock wave - it's the motion of the air that causes buildings to fall down [or implode, or whatever].
Do we even know how a hunk of rock would react to the introduction of a bunch of alpha particles/gamma rays/x-rays/infrared radiation/etc? How would the the crystalline structure of the rock be affected? What models do we have that indicate the rock would shatter from an internal heat differential, rather than merely glowing very bright red for a while [assuming the rock even chose to absorb the heat energy in the first place, rather than just deflecting it off into the void of outer space]?
By contrast, underground detonations of nuclear devices are very benign events, and release vastly less energy than a small earthquake or a small volcanic event.
It's only the gaseous shock wave of an atmospheric detonation that causes damage to humans & their metropolitan areas - in the vacuum of outer space, with no atmosphere [i.e. with no gas, hence no gaseous shock wave], a nuclear detonation might not be that big of a deal.
You guys are all worried about anonymity and accountability [usually referred to simply as "authentication"] from the server's point of view, as the server looks at the various clients it interacts with.
The flip side of all of this is authentication from the client's point of view when the client looks at all the servers it might potentially choose to interact with.
If you're a client without an IP address, and you send out a DHCP packet, how do you "know" that the DHCP replies you receive are genuine, and not phishes?
If you're a client that hasn't cached every possible name resolution on the planet, and if you send out a DNS query, how do you "know" that the DNS replies you receive are not phishious replies directing you to phishious servers?
As far as I know, there are no "trusted" mathematical algorithms for authentication that do not require a central repository of known authentication/encryption keys [typically very large prime numbers], and a willingness & agreement on everyone's part to refer to that central authority as authoritative [and even there, everyone has to trust that their apparent interactions with that central authority have not themselves been phished].
An algorithm that provided for non-centralized "authentication" [if such an algorithm is even capable of existing] could very well be the mathematical breakthrough of the century.
"In the Privacy Statement of Windows Update Microsoft grants itself fairly far-reaching rights. Thus the information collected by the Redmond-based behemoth includes the computer make and model, version information for the operating system, browser, and any other Microsoft software for which updates might be available, Plug&Play ID numbers of hardware devices, region and language setting, Globally Unique Identifier (GUID), Product ID and Product Key, BIOS name, revision number, and revision date"
There are what - like a billion or so computers in the world running an M$FT operating system?
And e.g. Windows 2000 is now up to something like 125 or 150 Critical Updates since SP4?
And they're keeping track of all of that data?
That's a database that would make the NSA green with envy.
Can SQLServer handle a load like that?
Or would you be looking at something specialized, like what National Cash Register built for Wal-Mart?
Kentucky is considering two bills that would give explicit financial incentives to math and science students and teachers. The first bill would provide cash incentives to schools to run AP math and science classes, and cash scholarships to students who did well on AP math and science exams.
Cash to amateurs?
Tsk, tsk, tsk - the NCAA ain't gonna like this.
You ended your original comment by saying: If we could use ordinary cell phones, it would be ideal for everyone. Is there an off-the-shelf solution that could boost regular cellular signals in our bomb shelter?
Again, as I mentioned above, if you want to go the route of "regular cellular signals", then I'd take a long, hard look at Wilson Electronics [or an equivalent competitor]: The interconnections are made with RG-6 [RG-58] coaxial cable, which is possibly the easiest cable to work with known to mankind [let's face it, a retarded person could be taught to crimp F-Type connectors onto the end of RG-6 cable, and you can get the parts & tools at any Radio Shack, Lowes, or Home Depot in the United States], and their prices just strike me as eminently reasonable [given the functionality you'd be gaining by installing their equipment].
On the other hand, if you want to stick with PTT, then there are PTT amplifiers on the market, as well.
Wilson Electronics has some way-cool products as far as cell phone antennae & signal boosters are concerned: parent: They are expensive ~ $300 - $100
I assume you meant "$300 - $1000", but for a communications device that is meant to be used by tens [and possibly hundreds] of people, in a business setting, that strikes me as decidedly inexpensive.
Or maybe I just haven't been keeping up with telecomm prices these days [isn't the Apple iPhone supposed to start at $499.99?].
PS: The real "expense" will be the time you invest on ladders above hung ceilings, or in attics, or crawling around basement crawl spaces, pulling RG-6 coaxial cable.
[Or paying the illegal aliens to do it for you...]
Spend some time at MIT or CalTech and don't go there unless you actually enjoy the environment.
Carnegie Mellon == Pittsburgh == UGH.
MIT == Boston == YUCK.
Caltech == Pasadena == BLECCH.
The homeschooling movement needs to graduate to college - I think I might rather remain illiterate & innumerate than spend four years of my life in any of those hellholes.
And don't get me started on the insanity of spending $50,000+ per annum for the thrill of being miserable.
A place to discuss contract terms, get recommendations for legal help, advice on whether to go LLC or C-corp - or one of the million other questions that come up.
A fellow named "Robert A. Cooke" has written several easy-reading tax law/accountancy books, very much in the mould of what you might call "The Idiot's Guide[s] to Teaching Yourself Corporate Tax Law in About 24 Minutes Flat": Be aware, though, that Congress has a bad habit of changing the "laws" about every five minutes [and dittoes as regards the IRS & the "regulations"], so at any one point in time, no single person on the entire planet is entirely certain of the precise state of all the laws and all the regulations at that very moment.
But I'd recommend Cooke as a good place to start to get an overview of the big picture.
What are you talking about?
Well, say you have a server with a 5 user license.
And on that server you want to install five virtual servers, each with a five user license.
And on each of those five virtual servers, you want to install five virtual servers, each with a five user license [and so on, and so on...].
Will the thing run [without complaining] if you do all of this with the same [identical] copy of the same [identical] 5 user license?
Or will it balk, and require you to purchase [e.g.]
5 X 5 X 5 = 125
user licenses?
And in each case, will the ambient Active Directory be able to sense each of the [embedded] virtual Active Directories [and catalog their "virtual" license keys], or will the ambient Active Directory be oblivious to the [embedded] virtual Active Directories?
Is the virtualization gonna be recursive?
If so, how will they handle licenses of licenses of licenses of...?
And will Active Directory be able to handle trees of trees of trees of... license keys?
Malaria would be a forgotten disease if the ecopagans hadn't outlawed DDT.
Tens of millions of human beings [typically brown & black, and suffering in the most politically correct of third world cesspools] die every year because of our arrogant and narcissistic obsession with this pagan religion.
Elton John helps raise money for Gore
September 20, 2000
Web posted at: 9:40 AM EDT (1340 GMT)
ATHERTON, Calif. (Reuters) - Flamboyant rock star Elton John, making his first foray into American politics after three decades of performing in the United States, endorsed Vice President Al Gore at a ritzy Silicon Valley fund-raiser.
John, the entertainer at a $10,000-a-plate dinner Tuesday, began his set with "Your Song." But before his next number, he showed his political stripes to the business leaders of America's technological mecca...
The fund-raiser, at the home of Novell Corp. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, raised $3.25 million for the Democratic National Committee...
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/0
Dr. Eric Schmidt
Chairman of the Executive Committee and Chief Executive Officer
Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin recruited Eric Schmidt from Novell, where he led that company's strategic planning, management and technology development as chairman and CEO...
http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html#eric
I work for a POS dealer, and we thought about using this type of machine for our terminals. In the long run for us, it would actually cost us money, since we make most of our money on support and maintenance.
Frankly it's a shame that Taco hasn't added a category of "+1 tragicomical": This one little comment says more about business models and business ethics in the 21st century than you'd be taught in a decade at Wharton or Harvard Biz.
Intentionally convincing [i.e. "conning"] your customer to purchase the wrong solution [undoubtedly at a loss, i.e. as a "loss leader"] - a solution that is, furthermore, INTENTIONALLY CRIPPLED - so that you can recoup costs and achieve your profit in the future on "support and maintenance" calls?
Edward Teach would be in awe of your audacity.
The engine we currently use at my fortune 500 company sucks. I mean it is the worst. I would rather have a blindfold on with stumps for hands trying to type in an estimation of the internal IP address than use our search engine. That said, I have been told that we investigated using "Google Technology" although my superiors soon found that it wasn't at all better than what we already had. And so I've heard of a few others that have doubted Google's ability to dominate in a closed domain. They are clearly the winners in an open domain internet search but I haven't seen anyone take advantage of it as well internally
Closed domains have this thing called "Access Rights" - typically governed by either Novell Directory Services, or Microsoft Active Directory.
By and large, most enterprises don't want the janitor to be able to get on a kiosk terminal and surf the local search engine until he arrives at the document entitled FISCAL_YEAR_BRIBES_PAID_TO_MEMBERS_OF_THE_LOCAL_Z
So a "closed domain" document spider is gonna have to be granted Administrator/Supervisory rights to the authentication infrastructure [which is a HUGE security risk in and of itself], and then it's gonna have to keep track of the pertinent access control lists before deciding whether or not individual users have the right to view search results.
And if, as is typical, you've got four or five different authentication infrastructures in an enterprise [Novell Directory Services, Microsoft Active Directory, Sun iPlanet Directory Services, Oracle Internet Directory Services, etc etc etc], and if they aren't all tied together in some kinduva coherent LDAP framework, then that's just a massively complex project to even think about attempting to undertake.
Dude, I don't know whether or not she cracked SHA-1, but, as brilliant, 39-year-old, female mathematics professors go, this chick is HOT!!!
Man, what I wouldn't do to make babies with a chick like that...
Dude, I don't know whether or not she cracked SHA-1, but, as brilliant, 39-year-old, female mathematics professors go, this chick is HOT!!!
Man, what I wouldn't do to make babies with a chick like that...
If I'm thinking about purchasing an Acme Widget, I google something like acme widget sucks .
Or if it's a technical product, like the Acme Flux Capacitor, I might google acme flux capacitor teh sux0r .
Because a bad review is worth its weight in gold.
'Why can't I find any good information regarding the superiority of any given race over any other given race?'
Because you've never spent an afternoon with La Griffe du Lion.
Be afraid, people, be very, very afraid.
Quartz instead of Display Postscript (which was a Turing-complete language used for drawing view objects).
Didn't Avie call this "Display PDF"?
Dude, like, everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 22:
you can rent my Wang for $100
And then he could locate an IBM Selectric and teach them how to forge old National Guard Documents.
what the Linux community must do to achieve dominance
Uhh, if Linux achieves world dominance, then wouldn't it necessarily follow that Open Source would be evil?
And then Microsoft would be good?
Or maybe I just don't have a proper grasp of the Flemingian eschatology of 007, MI5, and SPECTRE.
Courts and prosecutors have a responsibility to deal with that reality. Certainly the uncertainity injected into all proceedings by that fact is yet another reason why the state should not commit homicide of people it thinks are killers.
If you must posit, as an hypothesis, that we are a nation of liars, then any further discusssion is moot.
Necessarily liberty can flourish only amongst men of good will; conversely, it will always wither and die when granted to liars and thieves.