I think you're being way too short-sighted about what AI will mean.
A reasonable use of AI at a search engine would be in creating true experts in every field, no matter how broad, narrow, popular or exotic, experts that know not only the broad and popular strokes, but the most intimate and tweaky details, and they would actually be able to understand what it is you were searching for, and go get it for you. Not what is statistically common, but actually what you're trying to find. Because they understand what you're trying to find, as a consequence of being actual experts in the area, not because they're aggregating several million people's random clicks.
While it is certainly possible that AI will be used the way you imagine, the search engine that uses it the way I am describing here will kick the ever-loving arse of anyone who does try to make AI the purveyor of an ever-narrower and more populist view of what you are looking for. Remember; What Amazon is doing is not, in any sense, "AI", it's just some crappy program that uses statistics. Quite badly.
AI will change everything, and I'm almost certainly understating the case at that.
This survey's results make a great deal of sense to me. We write and market an extensive graphics package that in many ways surpasses Photoshop in capabilities. What we don't do is "market" it in the traditional sense (though you can find our zero-dollar "footprints" for instance my sig here, all over the web one way or another.) Adobe spends an amazing amount of money talking about Photoshop, compared to our zero dollars approach. We used to market like they did, back when we wrote Amiga graphics software. Sure, we sold a lot of product, but we spent so much on marketing that the actual gains after accounting for all the thrashing around with ads, reviewers, shows, distributors, dealers, packaging, brochures, mailings and so on weren't all that impressive. Classical marketing is expensive!
These days, we only sell direct and we have significant amounts of detail on the web — about 70 megabytes of docs, images and animations — the search engines, particularly Google, do a great job of finding us when people search out the types of graphics specific things our software does. We're astonishingly successful for the type of company we are today; I have absolutely no reason to complain, nor does anyone else who stuck it out with me all these years. We've been marketing online well prior to the advent of the web; we started doing it on Compuserve no less, and the more we did that, the better results we got. When the web came, our approach, which is put everything you can online and then some, began to work for us much better, the web being a richer environment than CIS ever was; and when search engines began to get reasonably smart, that pretty much taught us to kill our standard marketing. I don't regret it one bit (and by the way, I own the company outright, so that is the opinion of the company.:)
By comparison, every once in a while we get some press, though again, we don't actively seek it out. When that happens today, we see small spikes in sales. In the past, say, in the late 1980's, serious press (like a review) would make huge difference in sales for a month or so. My impression is that the impact of self-described "news" outlets has dropped in a big way since I began writing and selling software back in the late 1970's. I'd say they're essentially in the "don't count for much" category today, though I'm reasonably sure they'd offer a different opinion.:)
We do all of our business as a consequence of word of mouth and search engines. By all, I mean to say in the high 90th percentile. Not that we discourage anyone from reviewing, far from it... it's just that when you've got something specific, something technical, it's pretty much as the report says: people can find you, and they will. Another thing that helps is having truly unique content and capabilities; for instance if someone needs nondestructive geometric image manipulation, or morphing, they're going to find us, and quickly. If a site has "me-too" content that is duplicated in large part all over the web, I don't imagine the search engines would be all that useful, because now you're into trying to trick your site uprank with semantics, and while that may work for a while, the search engines are always mutating how they rank things and if you don't spend a heck of a lot of time on it, I could see any such effort sinking beneath the waves, as it were, within a relatively short time. We don 't spend any time manipulating our site's ccontents. We just write about what we offer, in as much detail as we can think of. If we think of something new, or need to make a correction, we certainly do that, but it isn't possible (or even reasonable) to try and fudge a site as large as ours based on today's particular version of how Google is going to rank things.
All in all, the results these researchers got fits in with my mental image of what the web "does" quite well. People who know what they are
This is just a stop on the way to the supreme court. Don't be counting any chickens of liberty as yet. And remember: This is the supreme court that ruled that growth, distribution and use of pot within the borders of California was "interstate commerce", and it's not a lot different from the supreme court that ruled that retroactive registration of sexual and violent offenders wasn't ex post facto punishment, either.
Don't get me wrong -- I applaud the ruling. But the fact of the matter is that for matters of state and country, things typically progress to the supreme court, and lower court rulings mean very little in the long run.
6809 -- easily the best combination of instructions ever put into a microprocessor. Not register rich, but then again, it handled memory so well, and in so many ways, that really didn't matter. The 68[000-040] series was a dissapointment by comparison. I've written tens of thousands of lines for both. Unfortuately, the 6809 really never made it out of the 8-bit/64k world.
Real World programmers are still using BASIC {don't laugh: Windows and Office were written in BASIC
No one is laughing. There may be some tears here and there, however.
I can pretty much believe Office was written in BASIC, given the profound speed and reliability problems it is well known for. I'm going to have to call [prove it] on the Windows claim, though. Windows, for all its other faults, is pretty efficient. Not a hallmark of any BASIC product MS has ever been associated with that I am aware of, anyway.
C would certainly be about as low as you can get without manipulating individual registers - i.e., without being assembly language.
Actually, I think Forth is a little lower. The RPN nature of the language makes for a considerably closer mapping from language use to stack use for one thing, and for another, Forth atoms tend to be more primitive and more prefab than what a particular expression in C might produce.
C remains my favorite for anything that requires speed. It has always seemed to me that when someone who understands what is going on at the machine level writes C code, they can make quite fast results as compared to someone who has learned C syntax, but doesn't have a sense of what is happening with stacks, LEAs, how a particular problem may map to float, fixed or integer approaches on top of a particular processor or chip set. C++ approaches appear overrated to me. If I want objects, I make them. If I want a *really* high level approach, I use Python.
I don't see any explosions from 20-30 floors below. More like 2-3.
They are ***clearly*** visible and POINTED OUT on the video I pointed you to. Which plays fine on the second link. However, you wrote that you "gave up", claiming that the video had been debunked. Since you have obviously not WATCHED the video, and *again* are completely ignorant of the facts that you attempt to argue against -- obviously you have not watched the events for yourself, are taking your validaation from third parties, and so I decline to spend any more time on this. People who argue from conviction instead of data belong in churches, not discussions about reality.
And by the way, here's the first problem with the popular science article: "Once each tower began to collapse" It has never been satisfactorily explained why the collapse began. There were two smallish fires up on the oen tower; the NYPD fire cheif was up there, on the radio, and he said he'd neeed just a couple of lines (fire hoses) to put it out. Doesn't sound much like a multi-thousand degree raging inferno that the standard line would have you believe melted the multiply redundant core of supportinig steel. The second problem is answering why all that "compressed air" didn't just blow out the windows on the immediate floors below, but went down multiple tens of stories to blow them out there instead. I thought it could have been elevator or utility shafts -- there were quite a lot of them in the building -- but actually watching the events (yes, I know that's too hard for you to do) it doesn't look like that at all.
Anyway, don't you worry your pretty little head about it. The facts are the facts, they're not subject to either of our opinions. History usually has a way of finding out what happens when people lie fusge the data.
I found another site with a video about the "outgassings" and I still think you're full of it. Looks to me like debris being blown out windows from the force of the floors above collapsing.
You are seriously asserting that explosions 20 to 30 floors below the collapsing region represent debris being pushed out from above, while the 20 to 30 floors in between suffer no such event? I'm having trouble with that.
Also, you asked above, what happened to the plane. That's why I directed you to this specific video; it addresses those questions. Watch, then comment, please.
Wings fold toward the fuselage, engine enters hole. Or, engine comes off when plane touches the ground before impact, momentum carries it into hole. Done.
Sorry, I missed that. The physics won't work. You can't translate the engines sideways suddenly. They have enormous kinetic energy along a particular vector; you can't alter that vector in time to get them into the hole without a ridiculous amount of additional energy. Regarding what kind of engine it was, watch the film. They consulted experts; I am not one.
You can see the outgassings; the professor calls them out and they are patently obvious. The Pentagon impact is detailed. The reports on the problems with the idea that the steel failed are detailed. The questions you asked about the 757 are raised -- there are some answers, though not nearly enough.
Your call. Watch or don't watch; remain uninformed or learn something. Remember: This is just one of the works out there that examines the many anomolies involved with 9/11. If you can examine all of them and come up unconvinced, that would really be something. However, I know you have not — because just about everyone who has looked even a little knows about the sequenced outgassings. You don't. You will after you watch that video. Now, you may have a theory that accounts for them, and I'd be interested to read it. But saying you don't know just means you are unaware of some of the really obvious things that went on that day, and you should probably fix that. At least, if you want to be taken seriously as an advocate for the mundane explanation.
What you're saying, essentially, is that...
No. I'm not saying anything of the kind. I'm saying there are serious discrepancies and they don't match well with the story the government has put out. I've not drawn a conclusion. I don't think I have enough information to draw a conclusion. What I do have enough information for is to suspend my belief that the story we've been told is 100% true.
[16 feet] Which is larger than the width of the fuselage of a 757.
Ok. Look. Try to visualize. The 757 has two huge Pratt & Whitney PW2037 or PW2040, or Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4 or RB211-535E4B engines. They're mounted on the wings, OK? They're about 40 feet apart, or another way to look at it is they're 20 feet from the centerline of the aircraft. These engines are very dense compared to the fuselage. There is no third engine mounted on the centerline. These are all simple facts. Please visit the Boeing website if you feel the need to double check; I did.
Now. There was one hole in the Pentagon. Fact. The one and only hole was 16 feet wide. Fact. The engines were 20 feet off center, left and right. Fact. Another way to look at this is that they were at least twelve feet outside, horizontally, the maximum radius of the hole. Fact.
Now, ignoring the particular type of engine that was found (which was not a 757 engine, and is weird enough a fact as is), you tell me what your theory is as to how that jet engine got inside the Pentagon without there being an additional hole 20 feet from the center of the impact. The engine is very heavy, moving very fast, and it will either (as you intimate) disintigrate on contact, which I don't neccesarily have a problem with, or it'll breach the wall, which I also don't have a problem with, as it is denser than any other part of the aircraft. However, there was no hole except for the center one, and there was an engine, amazingly undamaged (as in, the turbine was still intact) inside the hole. So: how did the engine get in there? The obvious, and easy answer is that the engine was a centerline mounted engine. But if it was, then this wasn't a 757, which is a twin engine, wing mounted aircraft. But we were told this was a 757.
This leaves me, at least, with various unanswered questions. Now perhaps you are way, way smarter than me, and you see the answer or answers. I'd very much like to hear them. Please feel free to elaborate. Otherwise, watch the video and go snoop around the various sites asking these
Does anyone have any non-fluff stuff about wha power consumption, max transfer and the like is?
35 ns cycle time for read or write (about 28.57 MHz), read modes 50 ma to 80 ma max, write modes 105 ma to 155 ma max, 9 ma to 12 ma max for stanndby (no pins changing state) and 18 ma to 28 ma with pins flying but no selection enabled for the chip. This is with a 4 mbit chip organized as either 8- or 16-bit. Couldn't find a spec for "the like", you'll have to be more specific.:-)
Those specs were abstracted from the PDF data sheet easily found at on this page.
OK, Skippy -- what are those sequential explosive outgassings running down the sides of each building floors BELOW the crush points, at perfect timed intervals? You think that was the building occupoants farting in fear, or what?
Except for the goddamn big hole...
The pentagon hole was 16 feet across. Get off your lazy ass and research how big the airliner they SAY hit the building was, and don't forget the wings, and the engines on the wings. Then ask how that (way too small) jet engine got into the hole where the fusilage was, considering there were NO holes out where the wings would have hit. C'mon, genius... what's your answer? Another "duh, no it don't"?
It had been on fire the whole time.
Fire has never in the past dropped skyscrapers; they're designed that way. Look it up. Did you know NO other skyscrapers EVER ANYWHERE have fallen from fire? I thought not. Look that up, too. While you're at it, look up how steel softens and at what heat, and WHY skyscrapers don't fall from fire. Then look up the temperature at which kerosine burns (jet fuel) and compare that to the molten pools of steel at the bases of the fallen buildings. Then look up thermite.
You know, it really doesn't bother me that some people aren't as bright as others. I mean, it IS unreasonable to expect everyone to understand what they see, know basic science, etc. But what DOES bother me is when someone like you, who has not taken the time or energy to examine the issues, or may not be bright enough to do so (I don't know that, I'm just saying it's possible) pretends they know what is going on. If you're not actually one of the world's mass under IQ 100, you certainly just made yourself look that way.
Assuming the cause is what we are being told, the appropriate reaction would have been:
Lock the cockpit doors, a 'la the Israeli approach (prevent recurrence)
Make sure weapons don't get on board aircraft
Determine the perps - mostly Saudi Muslims, according to the administration
(perhaps, debatable) flatten them (Certainly not the Afghans or the Iraqis)
Stop buying oil from the Saudis (stop funding the apparent problem.)
...but that would take clear heads, and unfortunately, we have politicians instead. So they attacked two unrelated countries, and took, and continue to take, civil liberties instead. Luckily, they also have the American war on personal choice (the drug war) to distract them, or they'd have taken even more.
As it stands, we still have some liberties left. We can still indulge in public protest (as long as we do it in "free speech zones" and nowhere near a funeral and have a permit), we still have our homes (well, unless the state wants them for higher taxes), we still have free speech (unless we want to broadcast it, in which case we have free speech minus seven words, if we're rich.) And we still have the right to regulate intrastate commerce on a state-by-state basis. Of course, the USSC has defined "interstate commerce" to be "anything that *could* be interstate commerce if you took it over the state borders", so this is mostly an exercise in "hope the feds don't have a different opinion", but states can at least try to make state law on goods and services.
As for the perjorative "MIHOP"... Even though it really does look like the twin tower buildings were dropped using standard demolition techniques, and even though building seven fell, hours later, without ever being hit by an aircraft and also looked like it was dropped in exactly the same manner as the two towers, and even though there are no signs that the Pentagon was hit by anything as large as an airliner, and even though airline fuel doesn't burn hot enough to soften steel enough to cause a collapse... I see that the idea that we might have some kind of problem other than what we're being told is still treated as a kook idea. I find this even more fascinating (and worrying) than I do the events themselves, which after all, have killed far fewer people than the administration's incursion into Iraq.
Was this something other than it appeared to be? We have some very troublesome evidence that doesn't fit the "a plane hit it, so it fell" scenario. We have a lot of missing gold from the vaults of the buildings. We have the removal of a single jet engine (which appears not to be an airliner engine anyway) from a hole in the Pentagon that was far too small for any of the wing materials of the putative airliner to have entered, and no holes (or even any damage) out where the wings would have caused the engines to impact; We have a knee-jerk war reaction against two countries that were not the majority source of the people we were told were the hijackers. The actual source of most of them, Saudi Arabia, remains untouched and a firm business partner. I'm not really on the "MIHOP" bus, but then again, I'm not really on the "it was just a hijacking with intent to fly into buildings" bus, either. I'm jusst mostly on the "my fellow citizens sure are an uninformed and spoon-fed bunch of people" bus.
Spend some time looking through the MIHOP sites on the net. I'm not saying you'll be convinced by any one site, but you sure will be entertained — and there are some startling facts worth thinking about.
No question about it at all. They have no interest in atheism, artificial intelligence, image processing, geology, programming and markup languages, microcontroller design, science fiction, ham radio, or animal rights. Not a one of them speaks Chinese and the only ones that speak Korean do so because they learned it, or are learning it, in my martial arts school.
From the other side of the coin, I have no interest in the high school football team, hunting and fishing, drinking and drugging, worshipping mythological constructs, or which tractor is really the best tractor. Worst of all, I don't watch television, and that pretty much cuts the last strand of the rope, right there. When they start to talk about who's winning or surviving on some reality show, I just quietly take my leave.
I stay out of their way, and I make sure that they don't know how aggravating it would be to try to "be my buddy." It's definitely best for everyone. The Internet serves for me as a window on a considerably wider world. My appreciation, as you might imagine, is considerable.
So, you've chopped someone's finger off and there's blood everywhere. It's pretty much all leaked out of the finger.
The finger won't leak much blood. It's not attached to a a heart to pump it, you see. So, no blood pressure. The stump will leak blood, but that's not a technical problem for the thief. It might even be an advantage, because...
How exactly do you use this in the next 30 minutes to purchase something, without suspicion, whilst making blood pump through it?
...you come prepared to your de-fingering with your little box containing the tools you need to mimic lifesigns. This could also (referencing the above leakage) include blood collection to pump through the finger. It isn't like it has to be sanitary or anything. It just has to look good to relatively simple hardware.
Finally, who says it has to be blood? A nice red plasma would do fine.
Just because you can't imagine how something would work, doesn't mean a competent engineer will have the same problem.
Well, the FCC also regulates access to the medium. That doesn't create a First Ammendment conflict I think.
Where I live, there is one (1) AM station, and one (1) FM station. yet, I cannot get a license to transmit without paying huge fees, employing lawyers, installing ridiculous over-featured equipment (I'm a 1st class HAM operator and at one time held the 1st class FCC radiotelephone operator's license as well -- so I know what's required, in fact, I'm the very fellow you used to have to hire in order to ensure that your installation complied technically. You can broadcast a clean AM or FM signal for under a grand, easily.)
The fact is, the FCC has created a situation where exactly one (1) type of entity has access to the airwaves: The rich. Rich individuals or rich corporations, these are the only ones who can get on, and therefore, they 100% control what is said. Clearly, this is a 1st amendment issue.
Likely the people who have no friends just have IQs that dwarf those around them making inteligent conversation impossible.
Perhaps not *the* factor, but certainly *a* factor.
I live in a small town in Montana. Aside from my significant other and one "local" fellow we are friends with, issues suitable for discussion with the citizens here aren't exactly technically involved or philosophically intriguing. In a town of about 5,000, the "meat" social life supports about 20 bars and 20 churches. The Internet looks mighty good in comparison to either. That, and a collection of cats, who seem to be generally smarter than my neighbors as well.
Any gummy-child old enough to get in a bag is old enough to decide what to do with itself is OK, as long as it is properly educated as to the risks. Consent is the issue here, that and the nebulous, improperly drawn as a line in the manufacturing sand of the nature of what "informed" means.
You chop off my finger, relatively soon, I'm going to notify my bank soon
Same as a credit card. "Use the asset quickly" is not a hurdle criminals don't understand.
Stealing a finger is neither safe nor easy.
The same can be said about stealing a wallet or burgling a home. Yet, these are common.
Let the user choose which finger it is (so the attacker doesn't know which one to take),
Well, (a) they can take them all, or (b) they can simply watch you buy something so they know which one it is, or (c) they can "ask" you which one it is and inform you that your entire family is forfeit if you lie. You gonna lie?
check for a pulse
Technically speaking, a pulse is the easiest marker to falsify. Tourniquet, insert needle, drive with appropriately modulated pressure curve. Use two needles, and you can keep the temperature up as well. Or you can just keep it in a warm box.:-)
ask for a PIN with the fingerprint, etc.
Ok. Evildoer has the stones to take your finger, or fingers. Knows they'll need the pin. What do you think they'll be willing to do to get it? You very fond of your dick? Enjoy binocular vision? Think having your lips enhances eating, speaking and/or kissing? <sarcasm>Yeah, they'll never get your PIN!</sarcasm>
You essentially reduce theft of your identity to your murder, and the majority of criminals aren't willing to go that far. Too much risk.
Sure. Last year's US murder stats: 16,912 murders. Clearly, there's no risk indicated there.
Slashdot Mirror
Government no longer worth having...
I think you're being way too short-sighted about what AI will mean.
A reasonable use of AI at a search engine would be in creating true experts in every field, no matter how broad, narrow, popular or exotic, experts that know not only the broad and popular strokes, but the most intimate and tweaky details, and they would actually be able to understand what it is you were searching for, and go get it for you. Not what is statistically common, but actually what you're trying to find. Because they understand what you're trying to find, as a consequence of being actual experts in the area, not because they're aggregating several million people's random clicks.
While it is certainly possible that AI will be used the way you imagine, the search engine that uses it the way I am describing here will kick the ever-loving arse of anyone who does try to make AI the purveyor of an ever-narrower and more populist view of what you are looking for. Remember; What Amazon is doing is not, in any sense, "AI", it's just some crappy program that uses statistics. Quite badly.
AI will change everything, and I'm almost certainly understating the case at that.
This survey's results make a great deal of sense to me. We write and market an extensive graphics package that in many ways surpasses Photoshop in capabilities. What we don't do is "market" it in the traditional sense (though you can find our zero-dollar "footprints" for instance my sig here, all over the web one way or another.) Adobe spends an amazing amount of money talking about Photoshop, compared to our zero dollars approach. We used to market like they did, back when we wrote Amiga graphics software. Sure, we sold a lot of product, but we spent so much on marketing that the actual gains after accounting for all the thrashing around with ads, reviewers, shows, distributors, dealers, packaging, brochures, mailings and so on weren't all that impressive. Classical marketing is expensive!
These days, we only sell direct and we have significant amounts of detail on the web — about 70 megabytes of docs, images and animations — the search engines, particularly Google, do a great job of finding us when people search out the types of graphics specific things our software does. We're astonishingly successful for the type of company we are today; I have absolutely no reason to complain, nor does anyone else who stuck it out with me all these years. We've been marketing online well prior to the advent of the web; we started doing it on Compuserve no less, and the more we did that, the better results we got. When the web came, our approach, which is put everything you can online and then some, began to work for us much better, the web being a richer environment than CIS ever was; and when search engines began to get reasonably smart, that pretty much taught us to kill our standard marketing. I don't regret it one bit (and by the way, I own the company outright, so that is the opinion of the company. :)
By comparison, every once in a while we get some press, though again, we don't actively seek it out. When that happens today, we see small spikes in sales. In the past, say, in the late 1980's, serious press (like a review) would make huge difference in sales for a month or so. My impression is that the impact of self-described "news" outlets has dropped in a big way since I began writing and selling software back in the late 1970's. I'd say they're essentially in the "don't count for much" category today, though I'm reasonably sure they'd offer a different opinion. :)
We do all of our business as a consequence of word of mouth and search engines. By all, I mean to say in the high 90th percentile. Not that we discourage anyone from reviewing, far from it... it's just that when you've got something specific, something technical, it's pretty much as the report says: people can find you, and they will. Another thing that helps is having truly unique content and capabilities; for instance if someone needs nondestructive geometric image manipulation, or morphing, they're going to find us, and quickly. If a site has "me-too" content that is duplicated in large part all over the web, I don't imagine the search engines would be all that useful, because now you're into trying to trick your site uprank with semantics, and while that may work for a while, the search engines are always mutating how they rank things and if you don't spend a heck of a lot of time on it, I could see any such effort sinking beneath the waves, as it were, within a relatively short time. We don 't spend any time manipulating our site's ccontents. We just write about what we offer, in as much detail as we can think of. If we think of something new, or need to make a correction, we certainly do that, but it isn't possible (or even reasonable) to try and fudge a site as large as ours based on today's particular version of how Google is going to rank things.
All in all, the results these researchers got fits in with my mental image of what the web "does" quite well. People who know what they are
No enforcement -- just like all the other laws he's broken, Bush gets a free pass.
But you... YOU had better weat that seatbelt, Mr. smart-ass.
This is just a stop on the way to the supreme court. Don't be counting any chickens of liberty as yet. And remember: This is the supreme court that ruled that growth, distribution and use of pot within the borders of California was "interstate commerce", and it's not a lot different from the supreme court that ruled that retroactive registration of sexual and violent offenders wasn't ex post facto punishment, either.
Don't get me wrong -- I applaud the ruling. But the fact of the matter is that for matters of state and country, things typically progress to the supreme court, and lower court rulings mean very little in the long run.
Breviloquence.
6809 -- easily the best combination of instructions ever put into a microprocessor. Not register rich, but then again, it handled memory so well, and in so many ways, that really didn't matter. The 68[000-040] series was a dissapointment by comparison. I've written tens of thousands of lines for both. Unfortuately, the 6809 really never made it out of the 8-bit/64k world.
Now compare Ruby against Python. :)
No one is laughing. There may be some tears here and there, however.
I can pretty much believe Office was written in BASIC, given the profound speed and reliability problems it is well known for. I'm going to have to call [prove it] on the Windows claim, though. Windows, for all its other faults, is pretty efficient. Not a hallmark of any BASIC product MS has ever been associated with that I am aware of, anyway.
Actually, I think Forth is a little lower. The RPN nature of the language makes for a considerably closer mapping from language use to stack use for one thing, and for another, Forth atoms tend to be more primitive and more prefab than what a particular expression in C might produce.
C remains my favorite for anything that requires speed. It has always seemed to me that when someone who understands what is going on at the machine level writes C code, they can make quite fast results as compared to someone who has learned C syntax, but doesn't have a sense of what is happening with stacks, LEAs, how a particular problem may map to float, fixed or integer approaches on top of a particular processor or chip set. C++ approaches appear overrated to me. If I want objects, I make them. If I want a *really* high level approach, I use Python.
Basically, give me C or give me Python.
They are ***clearly*** visible and POINTED OUT on the video I pointed you to. Which plays fine on the second link. However, you wrote that you "gave up", claiming that the video had been debunked. Since you have obviously not WATCHED the video, and *again* are completely ignorant of the facts that you attempt to argue against -- obviously you have not watched the events for yourself, are taking your validaation from third parties, and so I decline to spend any more time on this. People who argue from conviction instead of data belong in churches, not discussions about reality.
And by the way, here's the first problem with the popular science article: "Once each tower began to collapse" It has never been satisfactorily explained why the collapse began. There were two smallish fires up on the oen tower; the NYPD fire cheif was up there, on the radio, and he said he'd neeed just a couple of lines (fire hoses) to put it out. Doesn't sound much like a multi-thousand degree raging inferno that the standard line would have you believe melted the multiply redundant core of supportinig steel. The second problem is answering why all that "compressed air" didn't just blow out the windows on the immediate floors below, but went down multiple tens of stories to blow them out there instead. I thought it could have been elevator or utility shafts -- there were quite a lot of them in the building -- but actually watching the events (yes, I know that's too hard for you to do) it doesn't look like that at all.
Anyway, don't you worry your pretty little head about it. The facts are the facts, they're not subject to either of our opinions. History usually has a way of finding out what happens when people lie fusge the data.
You are seriously asserting that explosions 20 to 30 floors below the collapsing region represent debris being pushed out from above, while the 20 to 30 floors in between suffer no such event? I'm having trouble with that.
Also, you asked above, what happened to the plane. That's why I directed you to this specific video; it addresses those questions. Watch, then comment, please.
Sorry, I missed that. The physics won't work. You can't translate the engines sideways suddenly. They have enormous kinetic energy along a particular vector; you can't alter that vector in time to get them into the hole without a ridiculous amount of additional energy. Regarding what kind of engine it was, watch the film. They consulted experts; I am not one.
I see the trimmed version is no longer on Google. Sorry, I should have tried it.
This works, I did test it:
http://www.loosechange911.com/
Please watch, then we'll continue.
OK. I'll watch my temper. And I'll stipulate that you're not ignorant because you're stupid. You're just uninformed. Let's fix that.
Do something about it. Watch this:
http://f4d3r.blogspot.com/2006/03/911-documentary. html
You can see the outgassings; the professor calls them out and they are patently obvious. The Pentagon impact is detailed. The reports on the problems with the idea that the steel failed are detailed. The questions you asked about the 757 are raised -- there are some answers, though not nearly enough.
Your call. Watch or don't watch; remain uninformed or learn something. Remember: This is just one of the works out there that examines the many anomolies involved with 9/11. If you can examine all of them and come up unconvinced, that would really be something. However, I know you have not — because just about everyone who has looked even a little knows about the sequenced outgassings. You don't. You will after you watch that video. Now, you may have a theory that accounts for them, and I'd be interested to read it. But saying you don't know just means you are unaware of some of the really obvious things that went on that day, and you should probably fix that. At least, if you want to be taken seriously as an advocate for the mundane explanation.
No. I'm not saying anything of the kind. I'm saying there are serious discrepancies and they don't match well with the story the government has put out. I've not drawn a conclusion. I don't think I have enough information to draw a conclusion. What I do have enough information for is to suspend my belief that the story we've been told is 100% true.
Ok. Look. Try to visualize. The 757 has two huge Pratt & Whitney PW2037 or PW2040, or Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4 or RB211-535E4B engines. They're mounted on the wings, OK? They're about 40 feet apart, or another way to look at it is they're 20 feet from the centerline of the aircraft. These engines are very dense compared to the fuselage. There is no third engine mounted on the centerline. These are all simple facts. Please visit the Boeing website if you feel the need to double check; I did.
Now. There was one hole in the Pentagon. Fact. The one and only hole was 16 feet wide. Fact. The engines were 20 feet off center, left and right. Fact. Another way to look at this is that they were at least twelve feet outside, horizontally, the maximum radius of the hole. Fact.
Now, ignoring the particular type of engine that was found (which was not a 757 engine, and is weird enough a fact as is), you tell me what your theory is as to how that jet engine got inside the Pentagon without there being an additional hole 20 feet from the center of the impact. The engine is very heavy, moving very fast, and it will either (as you intimate) disintigrate on contact, which I don't neccesarily have a problem with, or it'll breach the wall, which I also don't have a problem with, as it is denser than any other part of the aircraft. However, there was no hole except for the center one, and there was an engine, amazingly undamaged (as in, the turbine was still intact) inside the hole. So: how did the engine get in there? The obvious, and easy answer is that the engine was a centerline mounted engine. But if it was, then this wasn't a 757, which is a twin engine, wing mounted aircraft. But we were told this was a 757.
This leaves me, at least, with various unanswered questions. Now perhaps you are way, way smarter than me, and you see the answer or answers. I'd very much like to hear them. Please feel free to elaborate. Otherwise, watch the video and go snoop around the various sites asking these
35 ns cycle time for read or write (about 28.57 MHz), read modes 50 ma to 80 ma max, write modes 105 ma to 155 ma max, 9 ma to 12 ma max for stanndby (no pins changing state) and 18 ma to 28 ma with pins flying but no selection enabled for the chip. This is with a 4 mbit chip organized as either 8- or 16-bit. Couldn't find a spec for "the like", you'll have to be more specific. :-)
Those specs were abstracted from the PDF data sheet easily found at on this page.
OK, Skippy -- what are those sequential explosive outgassings running down the sides of each building floors BELOW the crush points, at perfect timed intervals? You think that was the building occupoants farting in fear, or what?
The pentagon hole was 16 feet across. Get off your lazy ass and research how big the airliner they SAY hit the building was, and don't forget the wings, and the engines on the wings. Then ask how that (way too small) jet engine got into the hole where the fusilage was, considering there were NO holes out where the wings would have hit. C'mon, genius... what's your answer? Another "duh, no it don't"?
Fire has never in the past dropped skyscrapers; they're designed that way. Look it up. Did you know NO other skyscrapers EVER ANYWHERE have fallen from fire? I thought not. Look that up, too. While you're at it, look up how steel softens and at what heat, and WHY skyscrapers don't fall from fire. Then look up the temperature at which kerosine burns (jet fuel) and compare that to the molten pools of steel at the bases of the fallen buildings. Then look up thermite.
You know, it really doesn't bother me that some people aren't as bright as others. I mean, it IS unreasonable to expect everyone to understand what they see, know basic science, etc. But what DOES bother me is when someone like you, who has not taken the time or energy to examine the issues, or may not be bright enough to do so (I don't know that, I'm just saying it's possible) pretends they know what is going on. If you're not actually one of the world's mass under IQ 100, you certainly just made yourself look that way.
Assuming the cause is what we are being told, the appropriate reaction would have been:
As it stands, we still have some liberties left. We can still indulge in public protest (as long as we do it in "free speech zones" and nowhere near a funeral and have a permit), we still have our homes (well, unless the state wants them for higher taxes), we still have free speech (unless we want to broadcast it, in which case we have free speech minus seven words, if we're rich.) And we still have the right to regulate intrastate commerce on a state-by-state basis. Of course, the USSC has defined "interstate commerce" to be "anything that *could* be interstate commerce if you took it over the state borders", so this is mostly an exercise in "hope the feds don't have a different opinion", but states can at least try to make state law on goods and services.
As for the perjorative "MIHOP"... Even though it really does look like the twin tower buildings were dropped using standard demolition techniques, and even though building seven fell, hours later, without ever being hit by an aircraft and also looked like it was dropped in exactly the same manner as the two towers, and even though there are no signs that the Pentagon was hit by anything as large as an airliner, and even though airline fuel doesn't burn hot enough to soften steel enough to cause a collapse... I see that the idea that we might have some kind of problem other than what we're being told is still treated as a kook idea. I find this even more fascinating (and worrying) than I do the events themselves, which after all, have killed far fewer people than the administration's incursion into Iraq.
Was this something other than it appeared to be? We have some very troublesome evidence that doesn't fit the "a plane hit it, so it fell" scenario. We have a lot of missing gold from the vaults of the buildings. We have the removal of a single jet engine (which appears not to be an airliner engine anyway) from a hole in the Pentagon that was far too small for any of the wing materials of the putative airliner to have entered, and no holes (or even any damage) out where the wings would have caused the engines to impact; We have a knee-jerk war reaction against two countries that were not the majority source of the people we were told were the hijackers. The actual source of most of them, Saudi Arabia, remains untouched and a firm business partner. I'm not really on the "MIHOP" bus, but then again, I'm not really on the "it was just a hijacking with intent to fly into buildings" bus, either. I'm jusst mostly on the "my fellow citizens sure are an uninformed and spoon-fed bunch of people" bus.
Spend some time looking through the MIHOP sites on the net. I'm not saying you'll be convinced by any one site, but you sure will be entertained — and there are some startling facts worth thinking about.
No question about it at all. They have no interest in atheism, artificial intelligence, image processing, geology, programming and markup languages, microcontroller design, science fiction, ham radio, or animal rights. Not a one of them speaks Chinese and the only ones that speak Korean do so because they learned it, or are learning it, in my martial arts school.
From the other side of the coin, I have no interest in the high school football team, hunting and fishing, drinking and drugging, worshipping mythological constructs, or which tractor is really the best tractor. Worst of all, I don't watch television, and that pretty much cuts the last strand of the rope, right there. When they start to talk about who's winning or surviving on some reality show, I just quietly take my leave.
I stay out of their way, and I make sure that they don't know how aggravating it would be to try to "be my buddy." It's definitely best for everyone. The Internet serves for me as a window on a considerably wider world. My appreciation, as you might imagine, is considerable.
Yeah, it's valid in that sense, but it's also discontinued, last I checked. I got it a heck of a long time aqo, about 30 years or so.
The finger won't leak much blood. It's not attached to a a heart to pump it, you see. So, no blood pressure. The stump will leak blood, but that's not a technical problem for the thief. It might even be an advantage, because...
Finally, who says it has to be blood? A nice red plasma would do fine.
Just because you can't imagine how something would work, doesn't mean a competent engineer will have the same problem.
Where I live, there is one (1) AM station, and one (1) FM station. yet, I cannot get a license to transmit without paying huge fees, employing lawyers, installing ridiculous over-featured equipment (I'm a 1st class HAM operator and at one time held the 1st class FCC radiotelephone operator's license as well -- so I know what's required, in fact, I'm the very fellow you used to have to hire in order to ensure that your installation complied technically. You can broadcast a clean AM or FM signal for under a grand, easily.)
The fact is, the FCC has created a situation where exactly one (1) type of entity has access to the airwaves: The rich. Rich individuals or rich corporations, these are the only ones who can get on, and therefore, they 100% control what is said. Clearly, this is a 1st amendment issue.
Perhaps not *the* factor, but certainly *a* factor.
I live in a small town in Montana. Aside from my significant other and one "local" fellow we are friends with, issues suitable for discussion with the citizens here aren't exactly technically involved or philosophically intriguing. In a town of about 5,000, the "meat" social life supports about 20 bars and 20 churches. The Internet looks mighty good in comparison to either. That, and a collection of cats, who seem to be generally smarter than my neighbors as well.
Any gummy-child old enough to get in a bag is old enough to decide what to do with itself is OK, as long as it is properly educated as to the risks. Consent is the issue here, that and the nebulous, improperly drawn as a line in the manufacturing sand of the nature of what "informed" means.
Same as a credit card. "Use the asset quickly" is not a hurdle criminals don't understand.
The same can be said about stealing a wallet or burgling a home. Yet, these are common.
Well, (a) they can take them all, or (b) they can simply watch you buy something so they know which one it is, or (c) they can "ask" you which one it is and inform you that your entire family is forfeit if you lie. You gonna lie?
Technically speaking, a pulse is the easiest marker to falsify. Tourniquet, insert needle, drive with appropriately modulated pressure curve. Use two needles, and you can keep the temperature up as well. Or you can just keep it in a warm box. :-)
Ok. Evildoer has the stones to take your finger, or fingers. Knows they'll need the pin. What do you think they'll be willing to do to get it? You very fond of your dick? Enjoy binocular vision? Think having your lips enhances eating, speaking and/or kissing? <sarcasm>Yeah, they'll never get your PIN!</sarcasm>
Sure. Last year's US murder stats: 16,912 murders. Clearly, there's no risk indicated there.