No, that was not the challenge he gave me, as those of us who are literate already know. Go back and read the post. If there are any long words you need help with, let me know.
Furthermore, since the brand of laser he was using was left out of the article, unless you or the other poster has some extra information you are willing to share with us, we can assume nothing about the particular brand or strength of this laser pointer, and any attempt to do so is a strawman. Obviously it was powerful enough to be seen from an aircraft.
""Don't worry guy, we'll never use PATRIOT to prosecute citizens. We'll only use it to fight terrorism." (Imagine it coming from Saddam in South Park.)"
Why do you believe being a citizen and being a terrorist are mutually exclusive? We have had plenty of domestic terrorists from the Klan to McVeigh to ELF to the Unabomber. And those are just the guys who succeeded.
"Now we're using PATRIOT for day-to-day law enforcement. "
So arresting a guy doing something which could conceivably take down an airline is "day-to-day" law enforcement?
Considering all the crap that I've seen moderated up (and all the decent stuff that was clearly moderated down for purely political reasons), I don't think that would solve it. We would need experts to verify the information anyways. The problem isn't that people can't review and edit what is on the Wikipedia, its that it is being done by people with possibly inaccurate knowledge.
Besides,/. is a completely different story. Here comments cannot be edited, thus moderation is the only way to filter out the crap.
So everytime someone criticizes something that is popular at slashdot,they must have ulterior motives? It can't just be that he is concerned about the reputation of something he co-founded (and by extension, his own reputation)? Lets try to keep the ad hominem arguments to ourselves, ok?
Hey, I have no problems with partial solutions to our energy problem (assuming they don't cause bigger problems than they solve, I'm still not sure these guys have fully explored what can go wrong with these things). I just really hate misleading/. articles. They make it sound like we have everything ready to switch over to a zero-pollution energy grid and all that is stopping us is big oil and thier pet politicians.
"Yes, the article was severely confusing. They claimed that a single Laddermill can produce 100 megawatts, but that Seattle would need a few hundred of them? The last I heard (2001), Seattle's power consumption was on the order of 1300 megawatts. That'd be only 13 Laddermills, not several hundred."
Yeah, I was wondering about that. But since these guys wouldn't be up all the time, that 100 megawatt output probably isn't continuous. I'm guessing that number is the amount needed in order to produce enough such that the surplus generated when they are all up at the 100 mark will make up for the period of time when they are down because it is too dangerous.
"BTW, they claim that there would be no damage if they fell, because they'd fall so slowly. So that doesn't restrict where the things can be placed, unless they are wrong."
Well the kite expert (kite expert?) they mentioned at the end seemed to think they could become dangerous if the wind sent them down fast enough. Add to that the cables would have to be pretty strong to hold onto these things, not sure I want something like that ripping through my neighborhood should one of these things go down nearby. Plus even if it doesn't do damage from the impact, that doesn't mean they will be safe. Imagine you are driving down the highway when a 27 foot wide kite lands right in front of you.
What power stations are these? According to the article, a city like Seattle would require on the scale of a hundred thousand of these kites (or hundreds of plants with 400 kites each) to supply the city with electricity. And when you consider the limits to where these could be place (airspaces are out, along with any place where something could be damaged should one of these guys go down), this isn't a very feasible way to replace our current power system.
What they were saying was equal was the cost, not the total output per kite.
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th
on
New and Improved SETI
·
· Score: 1
"And are you giving any portion of your income to the charity of your choice"
What income? Currently I'm a recent grad who doesn't start his full time job for another week (hell I'm still waiting on my relocation check to come through the mail). The little money I have left will likely be spent living in area hotels before I can get an apartment. Once I start and am financially stable, yes I'll likely give a portion to charitable causes that I deem worthy of my money.
Regardless, I don't see where it is you are going with this, other than a possible ad hominem argument (which we all know is a logical fallacy, I could be Ebenezer himself and still think SETI is a foolish use of money).
"Either way, with the billions that Bill & Melinda throw into that effort, surely it's difficult to propose that they're not doing enough?"
When did they come into play? We were talking about Paul Allen. I have no problem with Billy's charitable gifts. Or is this some sort of/. conspiroucy theory that they are both the same person who changed identities in order to avoid the Feds?
Or are you arguing that medical researchers already have enough money? If that is what you are trying to get at, no, they of course can use more. Medical research is very expensive.
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th
on
New and Improved SETI
·
· Score: 1
" So how much of your spare cash have you thrown at education or curing diseases?"
I have a few million less than he.
"And speaking of curing diseases, it seems that Mr. Gates already is already heavily involved in that arena (the Bill & Linda Gate Foundation); therefore it wouldn't make sense for Mr. Allen to duplicate his efforts."
Why not? I'm interested in hearing the logic behind that. Is there some maximum amount of Microsoft dollars the CDC can spend?
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th
on
New and Improved SETI
·
· Score: 1
If no one else will, I'll object. I really don't care if he sells a product no one on slashdot particularly likes, but aren't there better uses of his money than searching for something for which there is almost zero chance of finding? Like education or curing diseases? Or even funding pure science?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, its his money and he can spend it on whatever he wants. I have no right to tell him what he can or cannot do with it. But I do have a right to tell him what I think he should and shouldn't do with it, and frankly, I feel this goes in the latter column.
"That's not a low. There's no reason for legislation, or for having the ESRB and the retailers act as surrogate parents."
Since you seem to feel that a parent should have a right to keep their kids from buying certain games (or CDs or movies or whatever the medium of the day is), I'm curious as to how you expect them to go about that. Are parents supposed to keep their kids chained up so they can never go anywhere near a store that sells violent video games? Are they supposed to monitor and watch their kid's every move?
Carding kids who try to buy violent video games doesn't interfere with your parenting any more than carding kids who try to see violent movies. If you feel the game (or movie) is fine, you are free to buy it for them or accompany them when they buy it.
In the article's defense, they regarded TV watching and socializing as two different things. It was the/. editor who interpreted them as the same thing.
You've never had arguments over who should be in control of the remote, whether or not the sound is too loud or too soft, whether or not the person in control of the remote should flip back to the main program because the ads are probably about up, etc?
I personally prefer to use a scientific perspective, which requires me to look at it from an objective viewpoint without worrying about whether or not I'll offend someone because I'm "belittling the tragedy".
I would assume your god, or the god of the origional AC if you two are different, though since I was asking you (or the origional AC) what you would do you get to decide. Though its rare that someone will blame something on someone else's god.
Or did you mean "Who's God"? In that case you can't even troll correctly.
But once again, this theory is predicated on the idea that the Earth is constant and never changing. That is simply not true. It is constantly changing. Do you think those earlier larger quakes had no effect on the speed of the planent's rotation? Or that the Moon doesn't alter it? The amount of time that one side of the planent faces the sun each day isn't some constant that has been that way since the beginning of time.
Except most Iraqis did consider themselves captive and did want to be free. Yes, some benefited from Saddam's rule (just as some Germans benefited from Nazi rule) and now they are pissed (just as many Germans were pissed when they were 'liberated'). That doesn't mean the country as a whole was better off.
I would suggest many (whatever nationality you are) would benefit from a more thorough study of current events.
Discussing the geological ramifications of a large earthquake is belittling the tragedy it caused? What would you do, call it an Act of God and never speak of it again?
And I hardly see anything in that post that justifies SUVs in there, in fact the only mention of SUVs was a claim that they did not cause the major changes in the Earth's climate millions of years ago. If thats what you call a justification, you have serious problems.
Thing is that stuff like this is really not out of the ordinary. This was the largest quake in 40 years, that means a larger one happened 40 years ago. And there were 3 larger ones in the past 100 years. Now for a human being once in every 40 years is rare, but for the planet that is pretty routine. We are all brought up to believe that the Earth is this fragile thing in which the slightest alteration screws up the balance of nature, but that really is not the case. It is a constantly changing giant rock spinning around in space.
Now that doesn't mean that the quake can't have changes just because larger recent quakes didn't do anything. In fact we know that massive changes in the Earth have happened before in the more distant past, and I seriously doubt they were from SUVs polluting too much, so it is perfectly possible that there is something special about this quake (other than just its magnitude) that will cause major changes.
" the guy invented the technology on a par with DVD-rom in 1974..."
Actually it was closer to 1965 when it was invented, something you would know had you RTFA.
"And he had the ideas patented, and no matter how many expensive laywers sony and phillps had, this guy had the idea, and the patents first."
No, his employer (Battelle) had the origional patents. And Sony and Phillips did not come about till much later, and was the subject of a patent lawsuit. More interesting facts you would know had you RTFA.
"This guys work could have easily lead to the DVD-movie playback way back in the mid 70s..."
Unlikely. There would be other developments that would also had been needed other than just a way to store data optically.
"they coulda had a working DVD-player if they'd actually hired the guy and paid the royalties"
Again, had you RTFA you would know the company that got the patents after the first company that bought them went bankrupt did hire him.
"Simply put: I don't believe that these cases should fall under criminal law, as they are, at the source, contractual issues. "
All theft is, at the source, a contractual issue. Hell all crime basically is too, now that you mention it. If you kill your neighbor, you are breaking the implied social contract that neither of you shall kill each other. So based on your logic, that murder should be a civil issue, with families, friends, and estates seeking out damages for the murder.
"What if I came by and spotted your family heirloom dinner table, told you I recognized it as a very fancy piece of furniture and that I'd pay you $40,000? (Lets assume that you have no job, and therefore need the money more than you need the table.) Then it turns out it was actually the table George Washington ate from, and that I knew it at the time, and that its actually worth several million dollars?"
Well for starters, that is a horrible analogy as according to the article, it sounds like he was doing pretty well. Assuming your 45-60k estimate is accurate, that was a lot of money back in the 60's. And there is no way you can argue the company they origionally sold the patent to (which then went bankrupt) knew that CDs and DVDs would become a major success story.
Plus in that case you would be paid, so the gp was correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, read one word in the definition and ignore the words surrounding it. Thats a great way to use the dictionary.
Furthermore, since the brand of laser he was using was left out of the article, unless you or the other poster has some extra information you are willing to share with us, we can assume nothing about the particular brand or strength of this laser pointer, and any attempt to do so is a strawman. Obviously it was powerful enough to be seen from an aircraft.
And I have an assignment for you. Look up the word "conceivably", which I deliberately inserted in my post.
Why do you believe being a citizen and being a terrorist are mutually exclusive? We have had plenty of domestic terrorists from the Klan to McVeigh to ELF to the Unabomber. And those are just the guys who succeeded.
"Now we're using PATRIOT for day-to-day law enforcement. "
So arresting a guy doing something which could conceivably take down an airline is "day-to-day" law enforcement?
Besides, /. is a completely different story. Here comments cannot be edited, thus moderation is the only way to filter out the crap.
So everytime someone criticizes something that is popular at slashdot,they must have ulterior motives? It can't just be that he is concerned about the reputation of something he co-founded (and by extension, his own reputation)? Lets try to keep the ad hominem arguments to ourselves, ok?
Hey, I have no problems with partial solutions to our energy problem (assuming they don't cause bigger problems than they solve, I'm still not sure these guys have fully explored what can go wrong with these things). I just really hate misleading /. articles. They make it sound like we have everything ready to switch over to a zero-pollution energy grid and all that is stopping us is big oil and thier pet politicians.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. But since these guys wouldn't be up all the time, that 100 megawatt output probably isn't continuous. I'm guessing that number is the amount needed in order to produce enough such that the surplus generated when they are all up at the 100 mark will make up for the period of time when they are down because it is too dangerous.
"BTW, they claim that there would be no damage if they fell, because they'd fall so slowly. So that doesn't restrict where the things can be placed, unless they are wrong."
Well the kite expert (kite expert?) they mentioned at the end seemed to think they could become dangerous if the wind sent them down fast enough. Add to that the cables would have to be pretty strong to hold onto these things, not sure I want something like that ripping through my neighborhood should one of these things go down nearby. Plus even if it doesn't do damage from the impact, that doesn't mean they will be safe. Imagine you are driving down the highway when a 27 foot wide kite lands right in front of you.
What they were saying was equal was the cost, not the total output per kite.
What income? Currently I'm a recent grad who doesn't start his full time job for another week (hell I'm still waiting on my relocation check to come through the mail). The little money I have left will likely be spent living in area hotels before I can get an apartment. Once I start and am financially stable, yes I'll likely give a portion to charitable causes that I deem worthy of my money.
Regardless, I don't see where it is you are going with this, other than a possible ad hominem argument (which we all know is a logical fallacy, I could be Ebenezer himself and still think SETI is a foolish use of money).
"Either way, with the billions that Bill & Melinda throw into that effort, surely it's difficult to propose that they're not doing enough?"
When did they come into play? We were talking about Paul Allen. I have no problem with Billy's charitable gifts. Or is this some sort of /. conspiroucy theory that they are both the same person who changed identities in order to avoid the Feds?
Or are you arguing that medical researchers already have enough money? If that is what you are trying to get at, no, they of course can use more. Medical research is very expensive.
I have a few million less than he.
"And speaking of curing diseases, it seems that Mr. Gates already is already heavily involved in that arena (the Bill & Linda Gate Foundation); therefore it wouldn't make sense for Mr. Allen to duplicate his efforts."
Why not? I'm interested in hearing the logic behind that. Is there some maximum amount of Microsoft dollars the CDC can spend?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, its his money and he can spend it on whatever he wants. I have no right to tell him what he can or cannot do with it. But I do have a right to tell him what I think he should and shouldn't do with it, and frankly, I feel this goes in the latter column.
Since you seem to feel that a parent should have a right to keep their kids from buying certain games (or CDs or movies or whatever the medium of the day is), I'm curious as to how you expect them to go about that. Are parents supposed to keep their kids chained up so they can never go anywhere near a store that sells violent video games? Are they supposed to monitor and watch their kid's every move?
Carding kids who try to buy violent video games doesn't interfere with your parenting any more than carding kids who try to see violent movies. If you feel the game (or movie) is fine, you are free to buy it for them or accompany them when they buy it.
In the article's defense, they regarded TV watching and socializing as two different things. It was the /. editor who interpreted them as the same thing.
You've never had arguments over who should be in control of the remote, whether or not the sound is too loud or too soft, whether or not the person in control of the remote should flip back to the main program because the ads are probably about up, etc?
I personally prefer to use a scientific perspective, which requires me to look at it from an objective viewpoint without worrying about whether or not I'll offend someone because I'm "belittling the tragedy".
Or did you mean "Who's God"? In that case you can't even troll correctly.
But once again, this theory is predicated on the idea that the Earth is constant and never changing. That is simply not true. It is constantly changing. Do you think those earlier larger quakes had no effect on the speed of the planent's rotation? Or that the Moon doesn't alter it? The amount of time that one side of the planent faces the sun each day isn't some constant that has been that way since the beginning of time.
I would suggest many (whatever nationality you are) would benefit from a more thorough study of current events.
And I hardly see anything in that post that justifies SUVs in there, in fact the only mention of SUVs was a claim that they did not cause the major changes in the Earth's climate millions of years ago. If thats what you call a justification, you have serious problems.
"$35000000 - amount committed to help victims
100000 - conservative death toll
= $350 - spent to aid each victim"
So all the money is going to aide the dead victims?
" $8,647,058 - spent to kill each Iraqi"
You do realize the purpose of war is not to kill as many people as we can.
Now that doesn't mean that the quake can't have changes just because larger recent quakes didn't do anything. In fact we know that massive changes in the Earth have happened before in the more distant past, and I seriously doubt they were from SUVs polluting too much, so it is perfectly possible that there is something special about this quake (other than just its magnitude) that will cause major changes.
Actually it was closer to 1965 when it was invented, something you would know had you RTFA.
"And he had the ideas patented, and no matter how many expensive laywers sony and phillps had, this guy had the idea, and the patents first."
No, his employer (Battelle) had the origional patents. And Sony and Phillips did not come about till much later, and was the subject of a patent lawsuit. More interesting facts you would know had you RTFA.
"This guys work could have easily lead to the DVD-movie playback way back in the mid 70s..."
Unlikely. There would be other developments that would also had been needed other than just a way to store data optically.
"they coulda had a working DVD-player if they'd actually hired the guy and paid the royalties"
Again, had you RTFA you would know the company that got the patents after the first company that bought them went bankrupt did hire him.
All theft is, at the source, a contractual issue. Hell all crime basically is too, now that you mention it. If you kill your neighbor, you are breaking the implied social contract that neither of you shall kill each other. So based on your logic, that murder should be a civil issue, with families, friends, and estates seeking out damages for the murder.
Well for starters, that is a horrible analogy as according to the article, it sounds like he was doing pretty well. Assuming your 45-60k estimate is accurate, that was a lot of money back in the 60's. And there is no way you can argue the company they origionally sold the patent to (which then went bankrupt) knew that CDs and DVDs would become a major success story.
Plus in that case you would be paid, so the gp was correct.