It would matter to the old you -- would you teleport yourself if you knew it was going to kill you? Okay, so they say that there's a "new" you at the destination, but the old you dies, right? You die. Would you bet your life on the process "keep[ing] your previous cons[c]ious state"?
Space shuttles don't come anywhere near 11.2 km/s.
Unless 71.4% is anywhere near. 8000 m/s is in the neighborhood, no?
However, at booster separation it's only travelling at 1400 m/s, so you're still on the mark as far as leaving the atmosphere is concerned.
This is a book that I've used for years and years (since before it forked into a Linux book and a Unix book) teaching Linux system administration classes, and I never found its match. Strongly recommended for novices and masters alike.
Those are indeed anagrams for "United States of America".
I find them funny. I see that you don't.
Maybe you should lighten up a bit.
And work on your punctuation, that last sentence is an abomination.
As for the anagrams themselves:
Neofascism attitudes are ripe in the US
Consider this list:
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
These were all found in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, Suharto's Indonesia, and they are found in the US today. There's no question that the US is in danger of becoming a fascist police state.
From wikipedia:
"Similarly, the adjective "faustian" has come to denote acts or constellations involving human hubris which lead eventually to doom."
That the US is a federation is not in question, I hope? The "satanic" part is funny because of the Christian fervor that's always been a part of the US.
sooner or later it will guess wrong. With the current state of our technology it would be dangerously negligent to place a firearm in the control of any form of AI.
So, what's the difference between robot friendly fire and human friendly fire? If there's none, wouldn't it be "dangerously negligent" to place a firearm in the control of any form of intelligence -- AI or otherwise?
/* Anecdote warning: Anecdote follows this line */
I visited a friend of mine a few days back, and he'd just bought a song off iTunes while simultaneously downloading it through a bittorrent network. He was slightly upset, to say the least, when he not only got the song faster over P2P, but it was also better quality (192 kbps vs 128 kbps from iTunes - the difference was clearly noticeable just by listening to the songs). He played the two songs back to back over and over again, getting angrier and angrier, saying "Why do I pay for an inferior product? Where's the incentive for me to pay to download instead of just downloading for free if the quality is worse?"
He then proceeded to check the bitrates on a fair portion of his music collection and was not pleased with the fact that the songs with the worst bitrates were the ones he actually paid to download.
This is a not-so-technical guy (an english teacher) who in my eyes is a regular guy who wants to do "the right thing" but has no real incentive apart from vague moral arguments about stealing and intellectual property. He doesn't mind paying for the songs he wants, but he does mind not getting the best quality product when he pays for it.
I couldn't give him a reason, and he couldn't come up with one either. I'm sure he's going to continue buying songs from iTunes, but he'll probably also going to continue downloading them off P2P.
/* End anecdote. */
So I agree - the paid version needs to be equally functional (or better) to the ones available for free. If they are, I see no reason for anybody not to pay for them. Maybe that's what the music industry needs to understand.
Thank you for that excellent explanation. The law actually seems to be similar in our two countries, now that you've explained some more about U.S. law. I realized while researching another reply that my country's traffic laws are actually based on a U.N. convention from 1968, maybe yours are too?
Thanks for your measured reply, and I do realize there are edge cases where the driver hit might be at fault.
Not if they suddenly swerved into your lane or pulled out into it.
Then they wouldn't really be stopped, now would they? Besides, if you rear-end someone who's not stopped you're still going to be at fault. Let's say someone driving slower than you swerves into your lane and you rear-end them as a result. Most likely you would be still be at fault, maybe for not paying attention to their turning signals, maybe for driving too fast, maybe for just not paying attention to what's happening _in front of your car_.
Basically the rule is since it's easier for you to see what's happening in front of your car than for the other guy to see what's happening behind his, you're the one who's supposed to adapt your driving so you don't hit the cars in front of you. The other driver has the same responsibility to the cars in front of _his_ car.
The only situation I can think of where you'd not be at fault is if they swerve into you, but that's a different situation from a rear-end.
P.S. While researching this, I discovered that it's illegal in my country to drive unneccesarily slow:)
whether the possible collision which might come as a result of coming to a dead stop in the fast lane of a motorway would be the fault of the driver stopping, or of the driver following so closely as to be unable to stop their vehicle before it collided with the stopped one; that's a slightly more complex area and might be argued either way, although I suspect it would be on her for stopping unnecessarily.
Is that really the case where you live? Where I live it's _always_ the fault of the driver unable to stop. You rear-end someone, you were following too close and it's your fault. Never, ever would it be the fault of the driver stopped. As a driver, you have the responsibility to drive at such a speed and distance to other traffic that you can safely avoid any (sudden) obstacles.
No, that is one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against Google when an NDA is on the line!
I actually taught my students RIP this way. They had to build up their own classroom routing table with information from the notes they were passing round. Big success, and quite fun too:)
In the novel "Accelerando" by Charles Stross (available as a free download if you're cheap) the protagonist's ex-wife is actually an IRS employee charged with reclaiming the "lost" tax revenue that the IRS percieves the protagonist owes due to him managing to live (and prosper) without earning any taxable income. It's a good read, buy it and enjoy.
The eastern world, it is exploding, violence flarin', bullets loadin', you're old enough to kill, but not for votin', you don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin', and even the Jordan River has bodies floatin'.
Don't you understand what I'm tryin' to say, can't you feel the fears I'm feelin' today? If the button is pushed, there's no runnin' away. There'll be no one to save, with the world in a grave - Take a look around ya boy, it's bound to scare ya boy.
Yeah, my blood's so mad feels like coagulatin', I'm sitting here just contemplatin', I can't twist the truth, it knows no regulation. Handful of senators don't pass legislation and marches alone can't bring integration when human respect is disintegratin', this whole crazy world is just too frustratin'
Think of all the hate there is in Red China, then take a look around to Selma, Alabama. You may leave here for 4 days in space but when you return, it's the same old place. The poundin' of the drums, the pride and disgrace, you can bury your dead, but don't leave a trace. Hate your next-door neighbor, but don't forget to say grace.
And... tell me over and over and over and over again, my friend, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.
The world record for survival is a nasa test at 52G
Slight correction: Colonel John Stapp in 1954 sustained 46.2 g in a rocket sled, while conducting research on the effects of human deceleration, Formula One race car driver David Purley survived an estimated 179.8 g in 1977 when he decelerated from 172 kmh1 (107 mph) to 0 in a distance of 66 cm (26 inches) after his throttle got stuck wide open and he hit a wall.
You could at least have clicked the Wikipedia link...
Plate tectonics:
More recently, plate motions have been implicated in the intensification of the present ice age when, approximately 3 million years ago, the North and South American plates collided to form the Isthmus of Panama and shut off direct mixing between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Solar variations:
On the longest time scales, the sun itself is getting brighter as it continues its main sequence evolution.
Orbital variations:
Such orbital variations, known as Milankovitch cycles, are a highly predictable consequence of basic physics due to the mutual interactions of the Earth, its moon, and the other planets. These variations are considered the driving factors underlying the glacial and interglacial cycles of the present ice age. Subtler variations are also present, such as the repeated advance and retreat of the Sahara desert in response to orbital precession.
Volcanism:
Huge eruptions, known as large igneous provinces, occur only a few times every hundred million years, but can reshape climate for millions of years and cause mass extinctions.
I know it's hard to understand that people that debate with you doesn't always disagree with you on every little thing, but believe me, I don't.
I do believe this, and I think you'd agree: Climate change is occurring, that is an undisputable scientific as well as philosophical fact. We know too little of what is causing these changes to make any hard and fast predictions about what the climate of tomorrow will be like. Is it natural, or is it not? Are we affecting climate in any way that matters? We know not, and I say we'd better start finding out by doing even more research into it.
As an intermediate measure, our best bet is to be pessimists and believe that we are affecting climate and act accordingly.
I encourage you to actually look at the Google Earth map and take a short view around the Western United States Area. Unlike other parts of Earth which are very wet, you'll find flat areas and plateaus and very angular formations. There are mountains that would be conical except they have had their sides blown off. There's no face, but there are actually quite a few interesting formations in that area.
I was talking about scientific interest as compared to conspiracy-theoretic interest. Of course anything on Mars is interesting, just by virtue of being on Mars. That's not to say that Cydonia is any more interesting than any other area. Sure there are interesting formations there, but that's true just about any place you'd care to point to. The only thing that makes Cydonia stand out are the fact that wishful thinkers and conspiracy theorists have managed to coerce themselves into believing that there is proof of life on Mars there.
All this from a very grainy photograph taken more than 30 years ago. One would think that once we got some better photographs these fantasies would die off, but it didn't happen in 2001 and I guess it won't happen this time either. Instead they roll right on to "The government is obviously hiding the truth"...
Anyway, you're welcome to your belief and your conspiracy theories. I'd just thougt that a few relevant links could be handy.
how did the temp go up in the first place? Unless the sun suddenly swelled for no known reason the only mechanism would be greenhouse gases.
Oh, come on!
There are at least three other factors that drive climate change on a geological time frame besides your facetious "the sun suddenly swelled for no known reason", and greenhouse gases:
Greenhouse gases (they do drive climate change, as we well know)
Plate tectonics
Solar variation (a.k.a "the sun suddenly swelled for no known reason")
Orbital variations
Volcanism
Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
Also on the topic of climatic change, I'd like to point you to the Milankovitch cycle, which although problematical still seems to be a good explanation for the apparent cyclical change to our climate.
And remember, we're in the Holocene; a warm spot between two ice ages. Just 5000 years ago, during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, global climate were about two degrees warmer than today.
All in all, climate is extremely complex and it's not just lack of records that make it hard to predict where the climate is going.
Is it really "intensely curious", or is it the fact that it's just not that interesting an area? Hasn't it been analyzed to death already? Does it even look like a face if you don't squint your eyes and believe?
Let's spell that out shall we? Former Soviet Republics of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
<dramatic pause>
What on earth are you talking about?
Are you trying to be accurate or are you just fond of acronyms?;)
Your acronym is redundant, it's politically, geographically and historically incorrect, and furthermore there's no literary, academic or even artistical merit to introducing an acronym if you're just going to use it once.
All other merit of your post, as for example your having an interesting question on the second line, is of course totally negated by this gaffe.;)
You need to visit this site. It answers a lot of your questions.
Van Allen belts:
The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.
Fuel issues:
First, the assumption that a given mission must expend all the vehicle's fuel is highly naive. Every rocket is provided with slightly more fuel than its mission requires, as a safety margin. In any event, the rocket is not compelled to burn all of it. The Saturn V was a sophisticated flying machine that was able to shut off its engine when the desired velocity was obtained, regardless of remaining fuel.
Craters and the like:
By comparison, a fully-loaded Harrier jump jet produces 27,000 lbf thrust at liftoff -- ten times more than a lunar module. Yet you typically do not see a crater under a Harrier. This is because popular intuition dictates that a rocket engine of any size is automatically more powerful than a jet engine of any size. In fact, most jet engines are more powerful than the lunar module's rocket engines.
Lunar Module takeoff film:
Some conspiracists point out that the film of the lunar module ascending from the lunar surface to meet the command module doesn't show any visible exhaust products. That's because by the time it comes into view of the command module the engine has stopped firing. Just as a baseball thrown upward will continue to rise after it has left the propulsive effect of your hand, the lunar module continues to rise after its engine stops firing. Unlike space ships in the movies, real spacecraft don't have to fire their engines continuously in order to make headway.
Slashdot Mirror
It would matter to the old you -- would you teleport yourself if you knew it was going to kill you?
Okay, so they say that there's a "new" you at the destination, but the old you dies, right? You die.
Would you bet your life on the process "keep[ing] your previous cons[c]ious state"?
How does it hold up to Linux Administration Handbook by Evi Nemeth et al?
This is a book that I've used for years and years (since before it forked into a Linux book and a Unix book) teaching Linux system administration classes, and I never found its match. Strongly recommended for novices and masters alike.
Do I seriously believe what?
Those are indeed anagrams for "United States of America".
I find them funny. I see that you don't.
Maybe you should lighten up a bit.
And work on your punctuation, that last sentence is an abomination.
As for the anagrams themselves:
Neofascism attitudes are ripe in the US
Consider this list:
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
These were all found in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, Suharto's Indonesia, and they are found in the US today. There's no question that the US is in danger of becoming a fascist police state.
From wikipedia:
"Similarly, the adjective "faustian" has come to denote acts or constellations involving human hubris which lead eventually to doom."
That the US is a federation is not in question, I hope? The "satanic" part is funny because of the Christian fervor that's always been a part of the US.
Oh, and it's funny. Laugh.
Here's the patent application.
Here you go: m y
You're welcome!
sooner or later it will guess wrong. With the current state of our technology it would be dangerously negligent to place a firearm in the control of any form of AI.
So, what's the difference between robot friendly fire and human friendly fire?
If there's none, wouldn't it be "dangerously negligent" to place a firearm in the control of any form of intelligence -- AI or otherwise?
/* Anecdote warning: Anecdote follows this line */
I visited a friend of mine a few days back, and he'd just bought a song off iTunes while simultaneously downloading it through a bittorrent network. He was slightly upset, to say the least, when he not only got the song faster over P2P, but it was also better quality (192 kbps vs 128 kbps from iTunes - the difference was clearly noticeable just by listening to the songs). He played the two songs back to back over and over again, getting angrier and angrier, saying "Why do I pay for an inferior product? Where's the incentive for me to pay to download instead of just downloading for free if the quality is worse?"
He then proceeded to check the bitrates on a fair portion of his music collection and was not pleased with the fact that the songs with the worst bitrates were the ones he actually paid to download.
This is a not-so-technical guy (an english teacher) who in my eyes is a regular guy who wants to do "the right thing" but has no real incentive apart from vague moral arguments about stealing and intellectual property. He doesn't mind paying for the songs he wants, but he does mind not getting the best quality product when he pays for it.
I couldn't give him a reason, and he couldn't come up with one either. I'm sure he's going to continue buying songs from iTunes, but he'll probably also going to continue downloading them off P2P.
/* End anecdote. */
So I agree - the paid version needs to be equally functional (or better) to the ones available for free. If they are, I see no reason for anybody not to pay for them. Maybe that's what the music industry needs to understand.
Thank you for that excellent explanation. The law actually seems to be similar in our two countries, now that you've explained some more about U.S. law. I realized while researching another reply that my country's traffic laws are actually based on a U.N. convention from 1968, maybe yours are too?
Thanks for your measured reply, and I do realize there are edge cases where the driver hit might be at fault.
Then they wouldn't really be stopped, now would they? Besides, if you rear-end someone who's not stopped you're still going to be at fault. Let's say someone driving slower than you swerves into your lane and you rear-end them as a result. Most likely you would be still be at fault, maybe for not paying attention to their turning signals, maybe for driving too fast, maybe for just not paying attention to what's happening _in front of your car_.
Basically the rule is since it's easier for you to see what's happening in front of your car than for the other guy to see what's happening behind his, you're the one who's supposed to adapt your driving so you don't hit the cars in front of you. The other driver has the same responsibility to the cars in front of _his_ car.
The only situation I can think of where you'd not be at fault is if they swerve into you, but that's a different situation from a rear-end.
P.S. While researching this, I discovered that it's illegal in my country to drive unneccesarily slow :)
Is that really the case where you live? Where I live it's _always_ the fault of the driver unable to stop. You rear-end someone, you were following too close and it's your fault. Never, ever would it be the fault of the driver stopped. As a driver, you have the responsibility to drive at such a speed and distance to other traffic that you can safely avoid any (sudden) obstacles.
No, that is one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against Google when an NDA is on the line!
I actually taught my students RIP this way. They had to build up their own classroom routing table with information from the notes they were passing round. Big success, and quite fun too :)
(emphasis mine)
Man, you really need to work on your understanding of this little thing called cause and effect... ;)
You mean Tank Farm Dynamo.
In the novel "Accelerando" by Charles Stross (available as a free download if you're cheap) the protagonist's ex-wife is actually an IRS employee charged with reclaiming the "lost" tax revenue that the IRS percieves the protagonist owes due to him managing to live (and prosper) without earning any taxable income. It's a good read, buy it and enjoy.
The eastern world, it is exploding, violence flarin', bullets loadin', you're old enough to kill, but not for votin', you don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin', and even the Jordan River has bodies floatin'.
Don't you understand what I'm tryin' to say, can't you feel the fears I'm feelin' today? If the button is pushed, there's no runnin' away. There'll be no one to save, with the world in a grave - Take a look around ya boy, it's bound to scare ya boy.
Yeah, my blood's so mad feels like coagulatin', I'm sitting here just contemplatin', I can't twist the truth, it knows no regulation. Handful of senators don't pass legislation and marches alone can't bring integration when human respect is disintegratin', this whole crazy world is just too frustratin'
Think of all the hate there is in Red China, then take a look around to Selma, Alabama. You may leave here for 4 days in space but when you return, it's the same old place. The poundin' of the drums, the pride and disgrace, you can bury your dead, but don't leave a trace. Hate your next-door neighbor, but don't forget to say grace.
And... tell me over and over and over and over again, my friend, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.
- Barry McGuire
All this from wikipedia, of course :)
Plate tectonics:
Solar variations:
Orbital variations:
Volcanism:
I know it's hard to understand that people that debate with you doesn't always disagree with you on every little thing, but believe me, I don't.
I do believe this, and I think you'd agree: Climate change is occurring, that is an undisputable scientific as well as philosophical fact. We know too little of what is causing these changes to make any hard and fast predictions about what the climate of tomorrow will be like. Is it natural, or is it not? Are we affecting climate in any way that matters? We know not, and I say we'd better start finding out by doing even more research into it.
As an intermediate measure, our best bet is to be pessimists and believe that we are affecting climate and act accordingly.
I encourage you to actually look at the Google Earth map and take a short view around the Western United States Area. Unlike other parts of Earth which are very wet, you'll find flat areas and plateaus and very angular formations. There are mountains that would be conical except they have had their sides blown off. There's no face, but there are actually quite a few interesting formations in that area.
I was talking about scientific interest as compared to conspiracy-theoretic interest. Of course anything on Mars is interesting, just by virtue of being on Mars. That's not to say that Cydonia is any more interesting than any other area. Sure there are interesting formations there, but that's true just about any place you'd care to point to. The only thing that makes Cydonia stand out are the fact that wishful thinkers and conspiracy theorists have managed to coerce themselves into believing that there is proof of life on Mars there.
All this from a very grainy photograph taken more than 30 years ago. One would think that once we got some better photographs these fantasies would die off, but it didn't happen in 2001 and I guess it won't happen this time either. Instead they roll right on to "The government is obviously hiding the truth"...
Anyway, you're welcome to your belief and your conspiracy theories. I'd just thougt that a few relevant links could be handy.
It's segues, not "segeways" -- segue is a fine word and it wants you to remember it and use it properly.
</Grammar Nazi>
Oh, come on!
There are at least three other factors that drive climate change on a geological time frame besides your facetious "the sun suddenly swelled for no known reason", and greenhouse gases:
- Greenhouse gases (they do drive climate change, as we well know)
- Plate tectonics
- Solar variation (a.k.a "the sun suddenly swelled for no known reason")
- Orbital variations
- Volcanism
Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_changeAlso on the topic of climatic change, I'd like to point you to the Milankovitch cycle, which although problematical still seems to be a good explanation for the apparent cyclical change to our climate.
And remember, we're in the Holocene; a warm spot between two ice ages. Just 5000 years ago, during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, global climate were about two degrees warmer than today.
All in all, climate is extremely complex and it's not just lack of records that make it hard to predict where the climate is going.
Is it really "intensely curious", or is it the fact that it's just not that interesting an area? Hasn't it been analyzed to death already? Does it even look like a face if you don't squint your eyes and believe?
Here's a few links about it anyway:U RE_0.html
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/2 2/0634233
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/face .html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_face_010525-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_on_Mars
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEM09F8L
Let's spell that out shall we?
Former Soviet Republics of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
<dramatic pause>
What on earth are you talking about?
Are you trying to be accurate or are you just fond of acronyms? ;)
Your acronym is redundant, it's politically, geographically and historically incorrect, and furthermore there's no literary, academic or even artistical merit to introducing an acronym if you're just going to use it once.
All other merit of your post, as for example your having an interesting question on the second line, is of course totally negated by this gaffe. ;)
Please reformulate and resubmit.
Van Allen belts:
Fuel issues: Craters and the like: Lunar Module takeoff film: