It doesn't take much to make a magnetic field "several times that of the earth", and if the thing is powered directly by AC, it's an oscillating field. Which means it's moving, in the US and Canada, back and forth 60 times a second(that's 120 flips). IANAPhysicist, but I'd think this would be desired in degaussers because the rapidly changing field would be less likely to impart permanent magnetism of its own.
Erm, a large part of the resentment seems(from the outside) to be US interference across the globe. Stepping in and fiddling with their economies is NOT likely to help, since as previously stated the economy does not really seem to be the issue.
This is certainly true. Obviously, common sense needs to be applied. The only point I was initially trying to make is that the "20 times zero is what?" comment in the post was at best an exaggeration.
There definitely comes a point where these people should be told to fund it themselves if they're so keen on it, but a lack of results does not in and of itself guarantee that the notion is unsound. A whole bunch of conflicting results is another matter, but a lack of evidence isn't statistically significant(sample size is zero).
Actually, I take that back. The sample size of this technique is insufficiently large to reject the hypothesis on a result of zero. Given that it's made to detect inherently rare events, a size of 0 would be within its data scatter. There's probably a point at which they can state that if they're not detecting WIMP interactions, then WIMP - at least alone - can't account for all of dark matter(or the proportion they thought it did according to the hypothesis). They might be some of it, but other things will then need to be looked at.
In short: It's possible for a limit value(in this case, zero events) to not be statistically significant. Consider it as a truncated normal curve, with 0 within a few standard deviations. You have two basic ways to avoid the insignificant limit problem: increase the mean value, or decrease the standard deviation. The former is possible by making a more sensitive detector(which could simply be bigger), the latter by making it more precise(which would probably mean, among other things, covering a MUCH larger area and likely multiple sites, and is in general harder to accomplish if you aren't even quite sure what you're looking for outside of unproven math).
So, while WIMPs wouldn't be disproven by a lack of results, it could eventually be stated that, since a count of zero is no longer within the variance of the hypothesis and the instruments used to test it, a persistant zero count would mean that the WIMP count is significantly lower than the prediction of the hypothesis, so the hypothesis would need to be revised.
Wow, what a suprise, hyperbole in the Slashdot summary.
The fact that the detector hasn't found the thing it was designed to detect doesn't mean that it has a zero sensitivity or that the hypothesis is bogus(you can't readily prove a negative except by proving a contradictory positive), just that, in the finite time it's been running, it hasn't been sensitive ENOUGH to detect anything. 20 x 0.00000000000000000(you get the picture)001 is still an improvement, and may be enough to make progress.
Certainly; it takes time to reorient your hand, and possibly more to readjust to the different operation(if you're REALLY good, you can reduce that latter, but there's still the matter of physically moving your hand, and either finding the pip on J(or F, for left-handed users) or looking down). Heck, that's even why the de facto standard in FPSes seems to now be one hand on mouse, one hand on WSAD or nearby "keypad"(UT seems to default to a left-handed config). Much easier to control it that way than to use a joystick and keep moving your fingers around(and hats aren't very good for precise aim).
First, the grandparent didn't say that's "[t]he difference between Russia and the United States". Second, your reasoning, though correct, is somewhat cicular. Culture determines what laws work, and laws are in at least some way responsible for shaping culture.
I'm a bit unclear on how arguing that a massive overpressure would be a bad thing equates to arguing that blimps are at bicycle-tire degrees of inflation. Other than that, whatever you were trying to say was so thoroughly obfuscated and wrapped with hyperbole that I'm not even going to try a rational discussion anymore.
Rigid airships could have very small air pressure and get away with it, but blimps wouldn't stay inflated. They need SOMETHING in them to stay inflated. Otherwise the atmospheric pressure around them would crumple them to at least some extent. The low molecular mass of helium allows them to be lighter-than-air even with comparable pressure.
Rigid airships would be okay because it's the framework that gives them their shape, but then, that framework also adds mass so they NEED the low pressure.
Now, the atmospheric pressure 10 miles up is quite a bit lower than it is at sea level, witness the problems that can arise with moving to a high altitude and then exerting oneself unduly. But a large pressure difference from "local" atmospheric pressure, either way, would mean that even a small rip is that much more threatening. As the pressure inside approaches the pressure outside, from either direction, diffusion becomes a major factor - and with that large a volume and a small opening, diffusion isn't going to work very fast.
But atmospheric pressure is like that of water thirty feet deep, quite high.
That doesn't particularly make sense. I know there are zones within the atmosphere where the temperature rises as you go up instead of falling - I believe it gets back up to around the freezing point of water at the upper ionosphere - but I've never before seen it stated that the pressure rises. It doesn't make sense - you have LESS air above you to give that pressure!
Someone must have thought something along those lines, because that 640K limit remained there for some time.
The point also remains: Just because people didn't see the need for something in the past does not inherently mean it isn't a good thing. Engines, vaccinations, computers...
The caveat, of course, is that just because something is new doesn't mean it's inherently better, either.
I think one of the main things about bears is that they're quite capable of mauling you, and they know it. The problem arises from the different cues among grizzlies and black bears(including brown-pelted "black bears"). One of them will leave you alone if you're noisy, but the other will just be more irritated by it and you'd best shut up.
I can't remember which is which. Will have to look that up before the next time I go into bear territory - wherever that may be.
Even if it had the altitude, putting a few pinpricks into the thing isn't going to bring it down. This is not a super-inflated balloon; extra pressure means extra mass, which increased density and defeats the point. It would have little more pressure than is required to maintain its shape, so even if you poke a few tiny holes in the thing, first, you're dealing with a massive volume of gas, and second, it's not leaking out very quickly.
In 1963 Bull started a series of test-firings using specialised discarding-sabot rounds and then finned projectiles known as Martletts. By June these had been replaced by a
dart-like shell known as the Martlett-2, which was soon reaching altitudes in excess of 100 km.
The only way that sort of thing could do much is a combination of blind luck and utterly stupid lack of redundancy. You'd more likely need at least fragmentation to do the job, probably an explosion from inside to burst the gasbag(which is not really meant for high pressure, especially when punctured and lacerated by shrapnel).
Granted, the altitude is almost excessive - can't read the initial article from work, but 65,000 ft / 5280 ft/mile ~= 12.3 miles; 100 km / 1.6 km/mile ~= 62.5. If you could apply this to a large shell that exploded at the right time, sure; it only has to go to 1/5 of the original results.
That's still pretty steep for a large explosive shell.
The article c) as posted is actually under section 2.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) and b) also skipped, but still required for actual compliance.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License.
(Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
Emphasis mine.
This, I think, is why bash and such can get away with not showing a license when run; they normally don't announce their readiness to receive commands, it's assumed and/or self-evident. IANAL and I am not part of the FSF.
I think the more damning portion is actually what comes right after 2c:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But
when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Please tell me where in the GPL does it state that you have to acknowledge its roots or pay its proper respects.
Every time I use a piece of software that's GPLed, the license info is prominently displayed. (Isn't it a requirement that a copy of the license be included?) If it's buried, then Sun gets to claim that it is still in there, while a number of users wouldn't dig deep enough to find it, so wouldn't be aware of the freedoms they should have.
I think the BSD license is great for some things, but mostly in things that would be used as building blocks. You still have a chance to market these if you play your cards right; people might pay for your expertise with them. But for big projects, I would at least give the GPL some serious consideration.
I don't think NORAD has been completely disassembled, has it? If we want blimps up here, that's our lookout; but in the meantime, something flying over us is likely to be noticed. And that's a fairly(if not extremely) long way to go without refueling - especially if they want to go back.
A missile of some stripe, probably one specifically designed to boost high. Typical SAMs shoot targets that are a lot closer(~10K feet?), but much faster and more maneuverable. A blimp-killer would probably be almost all booster, minimal guidance since it's shooting at a nearly- if not totally-stationary target, and have a very nasty fragmentation charge to not just puncture the airbag, but rip it to shreds.
A mass driver might work, but you'd probably still want an explosion, not a solid slug. Likely a timed explosive rather than a proximity fuse, because of the speeds in question and the chance of fouling complex circuitry with the magnetic pulse needed to launch. Simpler to just use a high-altitude-low-maneuverability missile and a good fire control radar.
Distribution of resources in space is not the same as that on a planet, especially not a rocky world like Earth(gas giants may have a lot more, I don't know offhand and can't get to Google from work). You may be correct, but that statement doesn't allow for local variation.
If a handgun can even shoot that high, it's not likely to have much stopping power. Even if they have a substantial range, shooting straight up is another matter entirely. You'd probably need an emplaced or vehicle-mounted gun, or a self-propelled missile, to shoot that high with any effectiveness. And they might not have a very good heat signature - not compared to a jet or internal-combustion engine anyway - so even handheld SAMs might not work too well. (Someone correctly if I'm wrong on this, but I believe handheld launchers would be IR-guided. They're definitely not passive radar-guided, because it'd defeat the point of portability if you also needed a fire-control radar.)
Too, blimps are NOT kept at high pressure. Actually, the ideal is having them as vacuous as possible while still maintaining their shape - too little pressure and they'll collapse in on themselves, and thus increase in density. Too much pressure and you're increasing the density another way. Pressure is probably just slightly over atmospheric - think of a balloon with just enough air in it to be round, not one that's fully inflated.
Also, I doubt it's a single gas bag. It's also probably made of a durable material, possibly self-sealing to some extent. Even if it is a single, thin bag, it has to be built of something that'll withstand ruptures; combined with the relatively low pressure, they're not going to catastrophically split like a punctured balloon, and the tiny puncture from a bullet is going to take a long time to vent. People might actually be able to climb on the things and patch them without even losing much altitude; even if not, they'll have plenty of time to land.
And a resource being "pretty limited" is relative. Sure, helium's harder to get than water, but that doesn't on its own mean there's not plenty of it to go around - possibly already in stockpile as other posters have alluded to.
Slashdot Mirror
If you've pirated the software, you're not a customer where that software is concerned - so the priority is even less.
Who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows the fool?
It doesn't take much to make a magnetic field "several times that of the earth", and if the thing is powered directly by AC, it's an oscillating field. Which means it's moving, in the US and Canada, back and forth 60 times a second(that's 120 flips). IANAPhysicist, but I'd think this would be desired in degaussers because the rapidly changing field would be less likely to impart permanent magnetism of its own.
Especially not a school at which you are a student.
What the hell does long hair have to do with anything?
Erm, a large part of the resentment seems(from the outside) to be US interference across the globe. Stepping in and fiddling with their economies is NOT likely to help, since as previously stated the economy does not really seem to be the issue.
This is certainly true. Obviously, common sense needs to be applied. The only point I was initially trying to make is that the "20 times zero is what?" comment in the post was at best an exaggeration.
There definitely comes a point where these people should be told to fund it themselves if they're so keen on it, but a lack of results does not in and of itself guarantee that the notion is unsound. A whole bunch of conflicting results is another matter, but a lack of evidence isn't statistically significant(sample size is zero).
Actually, I take that back. The sample size of this technique is insufficiently large to reject the hypothesis on a result of zero. Given that it's made to detect inherently rare events, a size of 0 would be within its data scatter. There's probably a point at which they can state that if they're not detecting WIMP interactions, then WIMP - at least alone - can't account for all of dark matter(or the proportion they thought it did according to the hypothesis). They might be some of it, but other things will then need to be looked at.
In short: It's possible for a limit value(in this case, zero events) to not be statistically significant. Consider it as a truncated normal curve, with 0 within a few standard deviations. You have two basic ways to avoid the insignificant limit problem: increase the mean value, or decrease the standard deviation. The former is possible by making a more sensitive detector(which could simply be bigger), the latter by making it more precise(which would probably mean, among other things, covering a MUCH larger area and likely multiple sites, and is in general harder to accomplish if you aren't even quite sure what you're looking for outside of unproven math).
So, while WIMPs wouldn't be disproven by a lack of results, it could eventually be stated that, since a count of zero is no longer within the variance of the hypothesis and the instruments used to test it, a persistant zero count would mean that the WIMP count is significantly lower than the prediction of the hypothesis, so the hypothesis would need to be revised.
Wow, what a suprise, hyperbole in the Slashdot summary.
The fact that the detector hasn't found the thing it was designed to detect doesn't mean that it has a zero sensitivity or that the hypothesis is bogus(you can't readily prove a negative except by proving a contradictory positive), just that, in the finite time it's been running, it hasn't been sensitive ENOUGH to detect anything. 20 x 0.00000000000000000(you get the picture)001 is still an improvement, and may be enough to make progress.
Certainly; it takes time to reorient your hand, and possibly more to readjust to the different operation(if you're REALLY good, you can reduce that latter, but there's still the matter of physically moving your hand, and either finding the pip on J(or F, for left-handed users) or looking down). Heck, that's even why the de facto standard in FPSes seems to now be one hand on mouse, one hand on WSAD or nearby "keypad"(UT seems to default to a left-handed config). Much easier to control it that way than to use a joystick and keep moving your fingers around(and hats aren't very good for precise aim).
On the mouse, perhaps? I'm right-handed and my left hand rarely leaves the keyboard when I'm at my terminal, but the right often does. :)
It is a grave error to assume that your enemies are foolish and you are clever.
First, the grandparent didn't say that's "[t]he difference between Russia and the United States". Second, your reasoning, though correct, is somewhat cicular. Culture determines what laws work, and laws are in at least some way responsible for shaping culture.
In point of fact, piano notes get quieter as you hold the key.
I'm a bit unclear on how arguing that a massive overpressure would be a bad thing equates to arguing that blimps are at bicycle-tire degrees of inflation. Other than that, whatever you were trying to say was so thoroughly obfuscated and wrapped with hyperbole that I'm not even going to try a rational discussion anymore.
Rigid airships would be okay because it's the framework that gives them their shape, but then, that framework also adds mass so they NEED the low pressure.
Now, the atmospheric pressure 10 miles up is quite a bit lower than it is at sea level, witness the problems that can arise with moving to a high altitude and then exerting oneself unduly. But a large pressure difference from "local" atmospheric pressure, either way, would mean that even a small rip is that much more threatening. As the pressure inside approaches the pressure outside, from either direction, diffusion becomes a major factor - and with that large a volume and a small opening, diffusion isn't going to work very fast.
That doesn't particularly make sense. I know there are zones within the atmosphere where the temperature rises as you go up instead of falling - I believe it gets back up to around the freezing point of water at the upper ionosphere - but I've never before seen it stated that the pressure rises. It doesn't make sense - you have LESS air above you to give that pressure!
Someone must have thought something along those lines, because that 640K limit remained there for some time.
The point also remains: Just because people didn't see the need for something in the past does not inherently mean it isn't a good thing. Engines, vaccinations, computers...
The caveat, of course, is that just because something is new doesn't mean it's inherently better, either.
I think one of the main things about bears is that they're quite capable of mauling you, and they know it. The problem arises from the different cues among grizzlies and black bears(including brown-pelted "black bears"). One of them will leave you alone if you're noisy, but the other will just be more irritated by it and you'd best shut up.
I can't remember which is which. Will have to look that up before the next time I go into bear territory - wherever that may be.
Even if it had the altitude, putting a few pinpricks into the thing isn't going to bring it down. This is not a super-inflated balloon; extra pressure means extra mass, which increased density and defeats the point. It would have little more pressure than is required to maintain its shape, so even if you poke a few tiny holes in the thing, first, you're dealing with a massive volume of gas, and second, it's not leaking out very quickly.
The only way that sort of thing could do much is a combination of blind luck and utterly stupid lack of redundancy. You'd more likely need at least fragmentation to do the job, probably an explosion from inside to burst the gasbag(which is not really meant for high pressure, especially when punctured and lacerated by shrapnel).
Granted, the altitude is almost excessive - can't read the initial article from work, but 65,000 ft / 5280 ft/mile ~= 12.3 miles; 100 km / 1.6 km/mile ~= 62.5. If you could apply this to a large shell that exploded at the right time, sure; it only has to go to 1/5 of the original results.
That's still pretty steep for a large explosive shell.
GPL
The article c) as posted is actually under section 2.
a) and b) also skipped, but still required for actual compliance.Emphasis mine.
This, I think, is why bash and such can get away with not showing a license when run; they normally don't announce their readiness to receive commands, it's assumed and/or self-evident. IANAL and I am not part of the FSF.
I think the more damning portion is actually what comes right after 2c:
Emphasis again mine.
I think the BSD license is great for some things, but mostly in things that would be used as building blocks. You still have a chance to market these if you play your cards right; people might pay for your expertise with them. But for big projects, I would at least give the GPL some serious consideration.
I don't think NORAD has been completely disassembled, has it? If we want blimps up here, that's our lookout; but in the meantime, something flying over us is likely to be noticed. And that's a fairly(if not extremely) long way to go without refueling - especially if they want to go back.
A missile of some stripe, probably one specifically designed to boost high. Typical SAMs shoot targets that are a lot closer(~10K feet?), but much faster and more maneuverable. A blimp-killer would probably be almost all booster, minimal guidance since it's shooting at a nearly- if not totally-stationary target, and have a very nasty fragmentation charge to not just puncture the airbag, but rip it to shreds.
A mass driver might work, but you'd probably still want an explosion, not a solid slug. Likely a timed explosive rather than a proximity fuse, because of the speeds in question and the chance of fouling complex circuitry with the magnetic pulse needed to launch. Simpler to just use a high-altitude-low-maneuverability missile and a good fire control radar.
Distribution of resources in space is not the same as that on a planet, especially not a rocky world like Earth(gas giants may have a lot more, I don't know offhand and can't get to Google from work). You may be correct, but that statement doesn't allow for local variation.
If a handgun can even shoot that high, it's not likely to have much stopping power. Even if they have a substantial range, shooting straight up is another matter entirely. You'd probably need an emplaced or vehicle-mounted gun, or a self-propelled missile, to shoot that high with any effectiveness. And they might not have a very good heat signature - not compared to a jet or internal-combustion engine anyway - so even handheld SAMs might not work too well. (Someone correctly if I'm wrong on this, but I believe handheld launchers would be IR-guided. They're definitely not passive radar-guided, because it'd defeat the point of portability if you also needed a fire-control radar.)
Too, blimps are NOT kept at high pressure. Actually, the ideal is having them as vacuous as possible while still maintaining their shape - too little pressure and they'll collapse in on themselves, and thus increase in density. Too much pressure and you're increasing the density another way. Pressure is probably just slightly over atmospheric - think of a balloon with just enough air in it to be round, not one that's fully inflated.
Also, I doubt it's a single gas bag. It's also probably made of a durable material, possibly self-sealing to some extent. Even if it is a single, thin bag, it has to be built of something that'll withstand ruptures; combined with the relatively low pressure, they're not going to catastrophically split like a punctured balloon, and the tiny puncture from a bullet is going to take a long time to vent. People might actually be able to climb on the things and patch them without even losing much altitude; even if not, they'll have plenty of time to land.
And a resource being "pretty limited" is relative. Sure, helium's harder to get than water, but that doesn't on its own mean there's not plenty of it to go around - possibly already in stockpile as other posters have alluded to.