How far back would you like to go? If Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait...
Which the US set in motion by putting Saddam in power AND all but gave approval of the invasion by essentially turning a blind eye to it. If the international community didn't raise such a stink over it, it's quite likely the our boy Saddam would still be at the reins.
And we put Saddam in power because the Iranian people decided that they didn't like being oppressed under the rule of a bloody dictator (the Shah) who was, no surprise, also put into power with the help of the US.
Al Quaeda? We bankrolled their entire operation until we found out that they really didn't like us anymore than the Soviets.
We've been screwing over the Middle East region in one form or another for the past 60 years or so. Is it really any surprise that things are they the way they are given the social, economic, and political unrest that our actions (and others) have caused there?
Agreed. This has got to be some sort of April Fools joke. There's no way this is a serious piece of research, much less actually pass a peer review process. Even a junior level programmer could tell you how stupid this paper is.
Some tips for the authors of this travesty:
1. Learn how computers work. 2. Learn how operating systems work. 3. Learn how programming languages work, especially ones that are interpreted or VM/CLR based. 4. Learn2code.
This "research", if it actually is research, should be nominated for an Ignoble Award. This would deserve an F even in an intro to programming course.
I think I'll go write a paper on how having lots of polygons in a 3D model will slow rendering down. I should get two Ph.Ds for that work.
If we were to engage in climate engineering, warming things up and adding a little CO2 is exactly what we'd want to do. It would increase the range of latitudes for food production and mitigate future ice ages, which are much more catastrophic than any effects from warming.
Wrong on all counts. Temperature is just one of many factors when it comes to growing food. Just because it's warm enough to grow something doesn't mean it will actually grow. For example, you aren't growing jack on top of the giant granite block in Canada known as the Canadian Shield. In addition, crops also depend on day-night cycles and would have no protections against pests and destructive species in the region. And what about water? In that shiny new latitude do you have any aquifers that can support major agricultural operations?
Starting major agricultural operations isn't something trivially done, and there aren't a hell of a lot of places in the world that actually have the conditions and/or resources to support it (let alone species adapted to those regions).
And no, ice ages are no more destructive than warm periods. Historically climate shifts, either warm or cold, were accompanied by extinction events. Life adapts to current conditions, and if those conditions suddenly change then more often than not that life dies. Just like sheets of ice, heat can easily make regions of the planet practically uninhabitable.
Though I do believe humans are doing a good job of trashing the environment, I have always felt like Global Warming was being used as a scare tactic, much like those "Repent and be saved!" guys that stand on street corners and preach about the end of days.
It's not a scare tactic. There are consequences when you screw up the climate that major agriculture depends on. We've already seen a couple of examples of what happens even when there's temporary regional shifts. And then of course there's sea level rise on top of that. No, it won't be the end of humanity but it certainly won't be pleasant.
Is Global Warming happening now? Yep, it appears it is. Is mankind the only cause of this phenomenon? I'm not 100% sure on that...
Science is never 100%. That's why it's science and not math. That's why just about every scientific conclusion includes error bars. Science provides the best answer based on available evidence and knowledge. That doesn't mean that knowledge can't be wrong or evidence can't be misleading. That's why the process of science is always reviewing and improving upon itself.
That being said, some high school level physics and math are all you need for strong evidence that the warming is caused by human activities. All the advanced research, models, etc. beyond that is trying to figure exactly how screwed we're going to be.:P
I don't see what the "accomplishment" is. The video stream was decoded and tile mapped outside of the NES itself. All the NES is doing is reading the tilemaps and displaying them. You don't need to be a genius to figure out how to do that.
In fact, they could increase the "quality" by taking advantage of the HBLANK interrupt (didn't seem like they were doing that in the video).
Regardless, this isn't "streaming" video on a NES.
What i'm wondering most, you start off by calling them crazy, but are they?
For starters, if we get into a war with the machines, we're going to need heavier firepower than an ax...
For starters, to even get to a stage where we would even possibly be at war with machines would imply that we don't destroy ourselves before reaching that level of technological advancement. It is far more likely that we destroy our civilization within the next century through a mixture of extremism, resource wars, and general human stupidity than developing some sort of AI that will wipe us out.
The guy in the article is crazy. Technology is not the problem. People are, and you're not going to convince people to support your cause by doing pointless/crazy things like hacking up satellites with an ax.
The language of the bill is very clear. It is intended to do what it says: make sure our regulatory bodies (employees of The People) are making their decisions based on publicly available, sound science.
The language is clear. I agree. But that isn't what it says.
Read all congressional measures as if you were lawful/evil. You'll find that more than a few of measures like this one do not say what you think it says. In this case, this seemingly innocuous and even beneficial measure becomes an extremely powerful tool for effectively neutering the EPA.
So what you're saying is that "Due Process" is inconvenient?
The EPA should be subject to due process. If they're saying they're doing something because of a study... then that study itself should be subject to examination... that includes whether it is reprroducable and therefore science at all... and then you're going to want to know where the information came from so you can audit it...
No. He's saying that it's impossible to review PUBLICLY what is held PRIVATELY. "Trade Secrets" is the corporate equivalent of "National Security". In addition, corporate snow-jobbing of the public has been going on for decades, and is already quite effective at stalling actions. Remember leaded gasoline? Asbestos? Acid rain? The measures here make it even easier to use those same tactics to effectively neuter or stop regulation entirely.
You can't take crap like this at face value. You have to read it like a politician. This has nothing to do scientific veracity, and everything to do with how to neuter the EPA so that corporate whores like Inhofe can line their pockets with more "free speech" while trashing our environment.
No.. The EPA would propose a regulation and during the required comment period, people could examine the science and the data used and attempt to reproduce it. If they find fault during the regulation process (the EPA cannot just declare regulation, it has to propose it, wait for a comment period, address any concerns brought up, comment, then vote to pass it). But anyone can reproduce the science if it is sound...
You reading it how a normal person would read it. From a normal person's perspective, it sounds like it's common sense. Read it like a politician or a lawyer. From that perspective, there's loopholes here you could drive a planet through. In fact, the loosest interpretation would pretty much guarantee that the EPA could never pass any regulations ever again which is exactly what people like "I gotsa snowball" Inhofe and his corporate sponsors want.
But while I have little sympathy for these dickheads, and I completely understand his motivation, I don't like this eye-for-an-eye response.
Easy to say when it isn't your daughter receiving death/rape threats. I don't know of a single parent who wouldn't do this (and more) if their children are threatened.
There is no proportionality when something like this goes viral.
Then the assholes shouldn't have said anything in the first place. We're not talking about a couple of screwed up kids thinking that they're funny. The people doing this were adults. There is no fucking excuse for this.
Should these guys have their lives ruined over this?
Actions have consequences. I don't know why people can't get this through their heads. The same freedom that allows you to post rape treats is the same freedom someone can use to hunt you down and expose you.
If someone came onto your lawn and started yelling about how they were going to rape your daughter, they're not going to get a little slap on the wrist. They'd get arrested, thrown in jail, and possibly be put on a sex offender list.
IF YOU WOULDN'T DO IT IN REAL LIFE, THEN DON'T FUCKING DO IT ON THE INTERNET.
Should they be subjected to the same bullying magnified through the lens of a million internet users out for "justice"? I think not.
Tough. Shit. They should have thought about that before publicly posting rape threats.
If one of these idiots kills himself over the response Curt will have effectively sentenced him to death. We shouldn't be comfortable with that outcome as a society.
No, he wouldn't. He's not responsible for what people do with the information. He's letting people know that there as some twisted fucks in their midst. That's a public service. I'm pretty sure most parents don't want to be associated with (or have their kids associated with) someone who thinks it's funny to make brutal rape threats.
Actions have consequences. If you can't handle the consequences or potential consequences of your actions, THEN DON'T FUCKING DO THEM. The fact that these assholes/idiots didn't stop to think about all the ways this could come back and bite them on the ass is no excuse. We may be a society laws, but we are also a society of humans.
It has nothing to do with capitalism. It has everything to do with unregulated corporate greed...
Capitalism is unregulated corporate greed and all too often it has demonstrated just how ugly human nature can be. Why do you think we have labor laws, health regulations, etc. in the first place? Because corporations gave not a single fuck about people. If they can higher immigrant workers at 10 cents an hour for 16 hours a day to work in unhealthy and dangerous conditions, they will do it. And they have done it. If they can hire their own personal army and intimidate/remove "problems", then they'll do it. And they have done it. If they can buy politicians to further improve their bottom line while crushing competition, they'll do it. And they have done it. If it is profitable to operate chemical plants in 3rd world countries that are basically ecological disasters waiting to happen because any fines would be a slap on the wrist compared to the profits they make exploiting that country, then they'll do it. And they have done it.
Capitalism is not altruistic. Capitalism is not about improving the human condition. Capitalism is about profit. Profit at any cost. If people die, so what. They still made their money. If they have to pay a million dollar fine, who cares? They made $10 million having workers slave away in an asbestos filled factory.
SO, they're only investigating the funding sources of people who disagree with their position.
Well, that couldn't be biased at all, now could it?
I guess your bias prevents you from reading. Documenting funding source for research is STANDARD PRACTICE. Hiding those sources and then LYING TO CONGRESS ABOUT IT has a tendency to viewed unfavorably.
The Phalanx system on US navy ships is, once activated, pretty much automatic. Anything within it's radar envelope automatically gets a dose of 20mm cannon fire. It's designed to take down anti-ship missiles, but will engage pretty much anything moving towards the boat that it's radar can pick up.
And if you happen to be the target, you are going to have a bad time.
Marine Private: AHHHH my arm, my arm! Major Payne: Want me to show you a little trick to take your mind off that arm? [Marine nods and Payne grabs the private's pinky finger] Major Payne: Now you might feel a little pressure. [Major Payne breaks the Marine's pinky] Marine Private: AUGGGGH! My finger, my finger! Major Payne: Works every time.
Seriously. We have a perfect understanding of the climate. We can predict to a tenth of a degree what the weather will be two weeks or two hundred years from now anywhere on Earth.
Weather and climate are not the same thing, and opening your idiotic diatribe with such a statement demonstrates you have very little understanding of basic math, physics, and chemistry. Global warming was predicted well over 100 years ago by Svante Arrhenius (considered the father of modern chemistry). He was the first to synthesize the work of Fourier and others from the early 1800's to produce physical model demonstrating how much impact increasing green house gases would have on average planetary temperature.
So almost 200 years of physics and chemistry, vs. one random internet poster who comes right out of the gate equating climate and weather. Who has more evidence supporting their argument?
And his evidence? What about the evidence? What does him accepting money have to do with his results?
Did he fake his evidence, or fudge the calculations?
Science is all about the observations and the predictive conclusions. It shouldn't matter if he was funded by the devil himself - if science can't refute his observations and conclusions, then it's the science that must be revisited.
His papers in regards to climate have been thoroughly destroyed. A quick Google search will yield plenty of information on the topic. Just avoid the science denial sites.
What if the universe is 120 times larger? Maybe our part of the observable universe just looks like it happened from a Big Bang.
For all we know our universe is just the latest in a string of "detonations" due to a locus of instability in the omniverse, Think of it like ripples in water caused by a drop falling into it. Each drop (the "bang") creates a universe and the resulting "wave" pushes the preceding bangs outward, causing expansion. Simultaneously all other bangs are hidden by the peaks of the wave since they all reside in the troughs.
The waves in this case would represent a multi-dimensional "buckling" as result of the explosions, creating what amounts to an infinite potential well between each one. From down in the "troughs", you can't see anything beyond your bounded but infinite space. And that space would appear to be expanding due to the unseen force of new bangs pushing yours outwards.
Now if there's some sort of aether/friction/resistance/etc. in this omniverse then it may be possible, after a long enough period of time, for the amplitude of the waves to diminish allowing observation, or even "crashing" into previous bangs.
Basically you can come up with just about any crazy idea you want once you start pushing the boundaries of the observable universe. However, coming up with something that can be validated scientifically is another matter.
The idea does actually work if the assumption is that we are living in a simulation, similar to ours.;)
That's actually what I thought too. I've actually pondered this before. If we are in a simulation then stuff at the microscopic or macroscopic only has to exist when viewed and can be generalized to a much lower resolution the rest of the time which would greatly reduce the processing power required. This might also help explain some of the observation effects of quantum physics where it seems that things act differently when observed.
No, you can't generalize to a low resolution case most of the time because the resulting computed "frames" would begin to deviate immediately from any form of calculation you try to apply. Chaos and all that.
Because short of the martial law of troops in the streets with body armor and M16's..... Oh wait... Our COPS have those now. Well they dont have assult vehicles...... Wait.... Nor do they have grenade launchers...... Welll.....
So basically they have been planning on the shit we have today for decades?
Well yeah. You don't throw frogs into boiling water. They jump. You have to put them in the water and then slowly turn up the heat..
Slashdot Mirror
Manholes r round cuz poop r not square.
Hire meh nao plz kthxbye.
How far back would you like to go? If Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait...
Which the US set in motion by putting Saddam in power AND all but gave approval of the invasion by essentially turning a blind eye to it. If the international community didn't raise such a stink over it, it's quite likely the our boy Saddam would still be at the reins.
And we put Saddam in power because the Iranian people decided that they didn't like being oppressed under the rule of a bloody dictator (the Shah) who was, no surprise, also put into power with the help of the US.
Al Quaeda? We bankrolled their entire operation until we found out that they really didn't like us anymore than the Soviets.
We've been screwing over the Middle East region in one form or another for the past 60 years or so. Is it really any surprise that things are they the way they are given the social, economic, and political unrest that our actions (and others) have caused there?
Agreed. This has got to be some sort of April Fools joke. There's no way this is a serious piece of research, much less actually pass a peer review process. Even a junior level programmer could tell you how stupid this paper is.
Some tips for the authors of this travesty:
1. Learn how computers work.
2. Learn how operating systems work.
3. Learn how programming languages work, especially ones that are interpreted or VM/CLR based.
4. Learn2code.
This "research", if it actually is research, should be nominated for an Ignoble Award. This would deserve an F even in an intro to programming course.
I think I'll go write a paper on how having lots of polygons in a 3D model will slow rendering down. I should get two Ph.Ds for that work.
If we were to engage in climate engineering, warming things up and adding a little CO2 is exactly what we'd want to do.
It would increase the range of latitudes for food production and mitigate future ice ages, which are much more catastrophic than any effects from warming.
Wrong on all counts. Temperature is just one of many factors when it comes to growing food. Just because it's warm enough to grow something doesn't mean it will actually grow. For example, you aren't growing jack on top of the giant granite block in Canada known as the Canadian Shield. In addition, crops also depend on day-night cycles and would have no protections against pests and destructive species in the region. And what about water? In that shiny new latitude do you have any aquifers that can support major agricultural operations?
Starting major agricultural operations isn't something trivially done, and there aren't a hell of a lot of places in the world that actually have the conditions and/or resources to support it (let alone species adapted to those regions).
And no, ice ages are no more destructive than warm periods. Historically climate shifts, either warm or cold, were accompanied by extinction events. Life adapts to current conditions, and if those conditions suddenly change then more often than not that life dies. Just like sheets of ice, heat can easily make regions of the planet practically uninhabitable.
Though I do believe humans are doing a good job of trashing the environment, I have always felt like Global Warming was being used as a scare tactic, much like those "Repent and be saved!" guys that stand on street corners and preach about the end of days.
It's not a scare tactic. There are consequences when you screw up the climate that major agriculture depends on. We've already seen a couple of examples of what happens even when there's temporary regional shifts. And then of course there's sea level rise on top of that. No, it won't be the end of humanity but it certainly won't be pleasant.
Is Global Warming happening now? Yep, it appears it is. Is mankind the only cause of this phenomenon? I'm not 100% sure on that...
Science is never 100%. That's why it's science and not math. That's why just about every scientific conclusion includes error bars. Science provides the best answer based on available evidence and knowledge. That doesn't mean that knowledge can't be wrong or evidence can't be misleading. That's why the process of science is always reviewing and improving upon itself.
That being said, some high school level physics and math are all you need for strong evidence that the warming is caused by human activities. All the advanced research, models, etc. beyond that is trying to figure exactly how screwed we're going to be. :P
I don't see what the "accomplishment" is. The video stream was decoded and tile mapped outside of the NES itself. All the NES is doing is reading the tilemaps and displaying them. You don't need to be a genius to figure out how to do that.
In fact, they could increase the "quality" by taking advantage of the HBLANK interrupt (didn't seem like they were doing that in the video).
Regardless, this isn't "streaming" video on a NES.
What i'm wondering most, you start off by calling them crazy, but are they?
For starters, if we get into a war with the machines, we're going to need heavier firepower than an ax...
For starters, to even get to a stage where we would even possibly be at war with machines would imply that we don't destroy ourselves before reaching that level of technological advancement. It is far more likely that we destroy our civilization within the next century through a mixture of extremism, resource wars, and general human stupidity than developing some sort of AI that will wipe us out.
The guy in the article is crazy. Technology is not the problem. People are, and you're not going to convince people to support your cause by doing pointless/crazy things like hacking up satellites with an ax.
The language of the bill is very clear. It is intended to do what it says: make sure our regulatory bodies (employees of The People) are making their decisions based on publicly available, sound science.
The language is clear. I agree. But that isn't what it says.
Read all congressional measures as if you were lawful/evil. You'll find that more than a few of measures like this one do not say what you think it says. In this case, this seemingly innocuous and even beneficial measure becomes an extremely powerful tool for effectively neutering the EPA.
So what you're saying is that "Due Process" is inconvenient?
The EPA should be subject to due process. If they're saying they're doing something because of a study... then that study itself should be subject to examination... that includes whether it is reprroducable and therefore science at all... and then you're going to want to know where the information came from so you can audit it...
No. He's saying that it's impossible to review PUBLICLY what is held PRIVATELY. "Trade Secrets" is the corporate equivalent of "National Security". In addition, corporate snow-jobbing of the public has been going on for decades, and is already quite effective at stalling actions. Remember leaded gasoline? Asbestos? Acid rain? The measures here make it even easier to use those same tactics to effectively neuter or stop regulation entirely.
You can't take crap like this at face value. You have to read it like a politician. This has nothing to do scientific veracity, and everything to do with how to neuter the EPA so that corporate whores like Inhofe can line their pockets with more "free speech" while trashing our environment.
No.. The EPA would propose a regulation and during the required comment period, people could examine the science and the data used and attempt to reproduce it. If they find fault during the regulation process (the EPA cannot just declare regulation, it has to propose it, wait for a comment period, address any concerns brought up, comment, then vote to pass it). But anyone can reproduce the science if it is sound...
You reading it how a normal person would read it. From a normal person's perspective, it sounds like it's common sense. Read it like a politician or a lawyer. From that perspective, there's loopholes here you could drive a planet through. In fact, the loosest interpretation would pretty much guarantee that the EPA could never pass any regulations ever again which is exactly what people like "I gotsa snowball" Inhofe and his corporate sponsors want.
But while I have little sympathy for these dickheads, and I completely understand his motivation, I don't like this eye-for-an-eye response.
Easy to say when it isn't your daughter receiving death/rape threats. I don't know of a single parent who wouldn't do this (and more) if their children are threatened.
There is no proportionality when something like this goes viral.
Then the assholes shouldn't have said anything in the first place. We're not talking about a couple of screwed up kids thinking that they're funny. The people doing this were adults. There is no fucking excuse for this.
Should these guys have their lives ruined over this?
Actions have consequences. I don't know why people can't get this through their heads. The same freedom that allows you to post rape treats is the same freedom someone can use to hunt you down and expose you.
If someone came onto your lawn and started yelling about how they were going to rape your daughter, they're not going to get a little slap on the wrist. They'd get arrested, thrown in jail, and possibly be put on a sex offender list.
IF YOU WOULDN'T DO IT IN REAL LIFE, THEN DON'T FUCKING DO IT ON THE INTERNET.
Should they be subjected to the same bullying magnified through the lens of a million internet users out for "justice"? I think not.
Tough. Shit. They should have thought about that before publicly posting rape threats.
If one of these idiots kills himself over the response Curt will have effectively sentenced him to death. We shouldn't be comfortable with that outcome as a society.
No, he wouldn't. He's not responsible for what people do with the information. He's letting people know that there as some twisted fucks in their midst. That's a public service. I'm pretty sure most parents don't want to be associated with (or have their kids associated with) someone who thinks it's funny to make brutal rape threats.
Actions have consequences. If you can't handle the consequences or potential consequences of your actions, THEN DON'T FUCKING DO THEM. The fact that these assholes/idiots didn't stop to think about all the ways this could come back and bite them on the ass is no excuse. We may be a society laws, but we are also a society of humans.
fuck capitalism.
It has nothing to do with capitalism. It has everything to do with unregulated corporate greed...
Capitalism is unregulated corporate greed and all too often it has demonstrated just how ugly human nature can be. Why do you think we have labor laws, health regulations, etc. in the first place? Because corporations gave not a single fuck about people. If they can higher immigrant workers at 10 cents an hour for 16 hours a day to work in unhealthy and dangerous conditions, they will do it. And they have done it. If they can hire their own personal army and intimidate/remove "problems", then they'll do it. And they have done it. If they can buy politicians to further improve their bottom line while crushing competition, they'll do it. And they have done it. If it is profitable to operate chemical plants in 3rd world countries that are basically ecological disasters waiting to happen because any fines would be a slap on the wrist compared to the profits they make exploiting that country, then they'll do it. And they have done it.
Capitalism is not altruistic. Capitalism is not about improving the human condition. Capitalism is about profit. Profit at any cost. If people die, so what. They still made their money. If they have to pay a million dollar fine, who cares? They made $10 million having workers slave away in an asbestos filled factory.
SO, they're only investigating the funding sources of people who disagree with their position.
Well, that couldn't be biased at all, now could it?
I guess your bias prevents you from reading. Documenting funding source for research is STANDARD PRACTICE. Hiding those sources and then LYING TO CONGRESS ABOUT IT has a tendency to viewed unfavorably.
In related news, iPod Touch sales are apparently nonexistent.
Outside of kids, that's probably true.
Inside of kids, it's too dark to use one.
Yeah, but you get to hit them until they change their tune.
The Phalanx system on US navy ships is, once activated, pretty much automatic. Anything within it's radar envelope automatically gets a dose of 20mm cannon fire. It's designed to take down anti-ship missiles, but will engage pretty much anything moving towards the boat that it's radar can pick up.
And if you happen to be the target, you are going to have a bad time.
The big problem is quantum effects. It's already an issue that chip designers need to deal with. The smaller you go, the bigger the problem.
This reminds me of Major Payne.
Marine Private: AHHHH my arm, my arm!
Major Payne: Want me to show you a little trick to take your mind off that arm?
[Marine nods and Payne grabs the private's pinky finger]
Major Payne: Now you might feel a little pressure.
[Major Payne breaks the Marine's pinky]
Marine Private: AUGGGGH! My finger, my finger!
Major Payne: Works every time.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Seriously. We have a perfect understanding of the climate. We can predict to a tenth of a degree what the weather will be two weeks or two hundred years from now anywhere on Earth.
Weather and climate are not the same thing, and opening your idiotic diatribe with such a statement demonstrates you have very little understanding of basic math, physics, and chemistry. Global warming was predicted well over 100 years ago by Svante Arrhenius (considered the father of modern chemistry). He was the first to synthesize the work of Fourier and others from the early 1800's to produce physical model demonstrating how much impact increasing green house gases would have on average planetary temperature.
So almost 200 years of physics and chemistry, vs. one random internet poster who comes right out of the gate equating climate and weather. Who has more evidence supporting their argument?
Quoting WUWT? Oh...oh my. You certainly are the comedian aren't you :D
And his evidence? What about the evidence? What does him accepting money have to do with his results?
Did he fake his evidence, or fudge the calculations?
Science is all about the observations and the predictive conclusions. It shouldn't matter if he was funded by the devil himself - if science can't refute his observations and conclusions, then it's the science that must be revisited.
His papers in regards to climate have been thoroughly destroyed. A quick Google search will yield plenty of information on the topic. Just avoid the science denial sites.
What if the universe is 120 times larger? Maybe our part of the observable universe just looks like it happened from a Big Bang.
For all we know our universe is just the latest in a string of "detonations" due to a locus of instability in the omniverse, Think of it like ripples in water caused by a drop falling into it. Each drop (the "bang") creates a universe and the resulting "wave" pushes the preceding bangs outward, causing expansion. Simultaneously all other bangs are hidden by the peaks of the wave since they all reside in the troughs.
The waves in this case would represent a multi-dimensional "buckling" as result of the explosions, creating what amounts to an infinite potential well between each one. From down in the "troughs", you can't see anything beyond your bounded but infinite space. And that space would appear to be expanding due to the unseen force of new bangs pushing yours outwards.
Now if there's some sort of aether/friction/resistance/etc. in this omniverse then it may be possible, after a long enough period of time, for the amplitude of the waves to diminish allowing observation, or even "crashing" into previous bangs.
Basically you can come up with just about any crazy idea you want once you start pushing the boundaries of the observable universe. However, coming up with something that can be validated scientifically is another matter.
The idea does actually work if the assumption is that we are living in a simulation, similar to ours. ;)
That's actually what I thought too. I've actually pondered this before. If we are in a simulation then stuff at the microscopic
or macroscopic only has to exist when viewed and can be generalized to a much lower resolution the rest of the time which
would greatly reduce the processing power required. This might also help explain some of the observation effects of quantum
physics where it seems that things act differently when observed.
No, you can't generalize to a low resolution case most of the time because the resulting computed "frames" would begin to deviate immediately from any form of calculation you try to apply. Chaos and all that.
Perhaps parents think that polio is a good cure for kids who can't sit still.
Because short of the martial law of troops in the streets with body armor and M16's..... Oh wait... Our COPS have those now.
Well they dont have assult vehicles...... Wait....
Nor do they have grenade launchers...... Welll.....
So basically they have been planning on the shit we have today for decades?
Well yeah. You don't throw frogs into boiling water. They jump. You have to put them in the water and then slowly turn up the heat..
Plan R? Jumping the gun a bit there son. You have even finished preparation H!