What that section means is that the dead don't care about the doings of the living. Also all the things that they did while alive don't have the same (emotional) meaning as they once did.
But they do exist in a spiritual way, they just have other things on their mind.
At the end of the article is mentions that they plan to use beryllium as the outer target of the capsule.
Anyone have any issue with the fact that beryllium is extremly toxic? And they are evaporating it?
They better have some really good containment chamber there, but it's hard to imagine that it's a goood long term choice of element. I mean fusion is very clean - why mess things up and add in a super toxic element?
"I've heard that before. But correlation does imply correlation."
Oh no it doesn't. And becide how do you know which way it works?
Perhaps having boys causes parents to go into engineering?
Or more likely some unknown 3rd factor causes both thing: boys and engineering. So there would be not causation between engineering and boys. (Meaning going into engineering would be useless.)
There are so many junk science reports that show correlation, but never show which way the causation goes. Which is the cause and which is the effect, lots of times they will pick one that sounds good to them, but never show any reason for it.
They for some reason asume that the changes in the brain cause a person to be gay.
But I would say it's quite the opposite - a person who chooses to be gay, acts gay, and his brain responds accordingly. It's well known that the brain will rewire itself depending on what you do with it. (For example if you play doom a lot you'll get better at it, i.e. brain will rewire itself. If you look for a certain gender to have sex with the brain will become better at enjoying that gender.)
If you start reading critically you'll find tons of these examples. Where "scientists" (not very good ones clearly) will just pick a cause and an efect to play up some conclusion that is important to them. Always ask: how do you know which is the cause and which is the effect. And if they say: it doesn't make sense the other way, or it's logically this way, laugh at them for being stupid.
"Perhaps dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/sda may work better, though far slower."
Don't do that - that will take months, if not years. It's about 1GB per month!
At the very least use/dev/urandom (about 4 minutes per 1GB but varies depending on CPU), and not/dev/random. But urandom is actually much slower then the disk itself so just using/dev/zero will help quite a bit - yes I am well aware the data can be retrieved - but it's costly, and by doing this you will most cetainly make it very hard for an adversary.
You have a mistake in how much wire you actually need.
The reason for the "standard" wire sizes given in electrical code is that they are designed to be stuck in insulation, and conduit and other places where they can't dissipate heat.
However in this case first or all you are only running current for 4 seconds! So they hardly have time to heat up much, and second you can easily put some cooling fins on them.
You don't need anywhere near as much wire as you might think.
(i.e. if it's safe to run 15 amps in a wire for 1 minute - you can run 90 apms in it for 15 seconds! And on top of that the electical codes are spec'd for continuous use.)
A locksmith comes to you and says: look your lock can be picked in 30 seconds, but mine takes 3 minutes. And because he "broke the security of your lock" it means that you won't do business with him? (I'm assuming you actually care how hard it is to break in.)
I think it's very telling how hard it is to break a lock, in the world of real locks it's judged by how long it takes (since all locks can be broken as you say, but you conveniently forget to mention that there is a measure of how good a lock is: how long does it take).
In a computer you don't measure how long it takes to break in, but rather how much damage can be done if you do break in.
Please don't try to deliberately create a flawed/weaker analogy - and then break it ("all locks can be broken" big wow to you). That's called a straw man argument (look it up).
Oh it's much worse then that - it's a clock that shows base 60 in base 10 in base 2!
If you wanted it done correctly, it would just show the number of seconds since midnight in binary.
But no, first it converts the number of seconds to 3, base 60 digits, then each of those digits are converted to 2 base 10 digits, which are finally converted to 8 base 2 digits!
So it's Binary coded decimal coded sexagesimal! BCDCS
It's talking about internal resistance - not just some added resistor after the package.
The internal resistance can be thought of as how quickly the chemicals in the battery can recombine.
It doesn't help at all to add a resistor after the battery - it can still recombine it's chemicals quickly (and have a runaway meltdown). Adding a resistor just adds energy loss via the resistor!
If all you were worried about was an overload condition at the terminals, then what you need is a fuse!
Important info on crypto hashes
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I guess I missed posting this before the bulk of the posts, but maybe it'll help someone.
First: MD* SHA-* etc - they are all basically the SAME algorithm! The are just minor modifications of the same exact thing, so a break in one is a break in all.
Second: Tons and tons of people ask: can't we merge two hashes together and get a stronger one? Yes you can that's EXACTLY what MD* and HA-* DO! They are a combination of different hashes! That's how they work.
So if you really did have a good combo of hashes then just give them a name and use them as a hash - don't bother just plain merging existing ones.
Also, merging say MD5 and SHA-1 is pointless - they are both based on the same hashing code! You are gaining nothing by merging them.
They do make a distinction between the two masses, but it's only to make the math easier. And you missunderstood what I was saying by shooting the mass off of the earth - I am shooting 1g of mass, but 2g of energy off of the earth.
I can put it a different way: convert 1g of mass into energy, heat lets say. Then heat up the other 1g using all that energy. Now shoot the whole bundle off of the planet (using other energy). If, as you say, energy has no mass it will only take whatever force is needed to move 1g of mass to space. I say however it will take you twice as much force to move it - because it actually has a GRAVITATIONAL (and every other kind of) mass of 2g! Even though it's invariant mass is only 1g.
Convert the 1g of heat back to mass and drop it back down. You just dropped 2g of matter down on the planet - but you supposedly only shot up 1g of matter.
Energy is mass in every sense! There are no exceptions, and it doesn't matter what kind of energy. What makes things wierd is that energy can be relative (speed for instance). That's why they usually use invariany mass for calculations - it's much simpler. However it does lead to errros if you are not careful.
And about light moving in a path indepenedent of it's mass: did you actually read the article? I was going to tell you that it's true only to a first approximation, but then I read the article and it says it right there, so you can read it for yourself.
That's not true - it can't be true. It would violate conservation of energy.
Additionally if what you are saying is true then inertial mass and gravitational mass are not always the same, which is not the case.
Here's how it violates conservation of energy:
Convert 1g of matter entirely to energy. Use the energy to accelerate some matter to close to the speed of light (thereby giving that matter exactly 1g of extra relativistic mass), and shoot it off of the surface of the earth.
Then on the other end convert it back to mass. Now you just moved 1g of matter off of the planet, drop it back down to the planet and collect the energy. Repeat as often as you like.
Mass and energy are EXACTLY equal - always.
Energy has a gravitational attraction, just like mass does.
In fact you are thinking about it backward - it's actually energy that has gravity, not mass. Mass just apears to have garvity because it's really energy.
Another proof of this is that light also gets influenced by gravity. And gravity is always a two way street.
Exactly! You just proved my point. The only thing you've observed is natural selection (AKA survival of the fittest). You have never observed evolution.
And contrary to ignorant belief the two are not the same thing.
>>Surely, if it is changing quickly then it is evolving even more than normal.
Wrong. Bacterias are designed to change - but they never change out of their boundaries.
>>Programmed in what sense? Are you saying that you agree that genes exist and you think they were programmed by God so that we change over time so that the fittest survive; that's called evolution.
Yes that's almost what I'm saying - except that's survial of the fittest IS NOT EVOLUTION.
You are probably the millionth person to think so, but it's simply not the case.
Survival of the fittest is making one pre-existing species more populous then another one.
However evolution is changing one species into a different one.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. In survival of the fittest the species must already exist!
Um, you may not know this, but stuff that's made by man, even if described in the bible doesn't have anywhere near the reliability of stuff made by god.
There's a reason why this passage describes who made this.
And BTW for the clueless, you do imagine that someone actually measured this pot right? And recorded what he measured - it's not prophecy after all. The reason these measurements are recorded is that the pot was very think. One measurement was an inner measurement, and the other was an outer measurement.
Do the math, go look up how much a hand breadth is, and figure the inner diameter was 10 cubits minus a hand breadth. Then see how 30 cubits compares with what you calculate for the inner circumference - you'll find it's quite accurate.
You're trying to be funny, but you're equating the level of knowledge of the shape of the earth, with the level of knowledge of evolution.
It's not even close.
It's quite obvious you know nothing at all about evolution, or you wouldn't even think of this joke. So as far as you are concerned it might as well be religion - you're just taking it on faith.
What are you talking about? Are you just making stuff up?
What does any of that have to do with evolution?
Evolution is genetic material changing in a way that's beyond what the genes are pre-programmed to do.
You may not know this, but genes are designed to be mutable. That's not evolution (children of the same parents don't all look alike - genes change, even in such a "simple" case). That's staying within the bounds of the genetic program. To give you an example, take twins, both with the same genes - if both sets of genes change in more of less the same way in response to something, that's by definition not evolution.
Evolution is totally random, going beyond that to something totally new, and that has never actually been seen.
People have looked, and looked and looked. And not once has a bacteria ever turning into something else. It's changed - but it's always remained a bacteria.
You have to remember that quick change in a bacteria is NOT evolution - bacteria genes are programmed for quick change.
Evolution has never been observed under any scale. The only thing that's been observed is a pre-existing trait in a species becoming more common, or obvious. But actual evolution has never been seen.
Slashdot Mirror
What that section means is that the dead don't care about the doings of the living. Also all the things that they did while alive don't have the same (emotional) meaning as they once did.
But they do exist in a spiritual way, they just have other things on their mind.
At the end of the article is mentions that they plan to use beryllium as the outer target of the capsule.
Anyone have any issue with the fact that beryllium is extremly toxic? And they are evaporating it?
They better have some really good containment chamber there, but it's hard to imagine that it's a goood long term choice of element. I mean fusion is very clean - why mess things up and add in a super toxic element?
"I've heard that before. But correlation does imply correlation."
n
Oh no it doesn't. And becide how do you know which way it works?
Perhaps having boys causes parents to go into engineering?
Or more likely some unknown 3rd factor causes both thing: boys and engineering. So there would be not causation between engineering and boys. (Meaning going into engineering would be useless.)
There are so many junk science reports that show correlation, but never show which way the causation goes. Which is the cause and which is the effect, lots of times they will pick one that sounds good to them, but never show any reason for it.
Here is a great example: http://news.google.com/news?q=gay+pheromones+brai
They for some reason asume that the changes in the brain cause a person to be gay.
But I would say it's quite the opposite - a person who chooses to be gay, acts gay, and his brain responds accordingly. It's well known that the brain will rewire itself depending on what you do with it. (For example if you play doom a lot you'll get better at it, i.e. brain will rewire itself. If you look for a certain gender to have sex with the brain will become better at enjoying that gender.)
If you start reading critically you'll find tons of these examples. Where "scientists" (not very good ones clearly) will just pick a cause and an efect to play up some conclusion that is important to them. Always ask: how do you know which is the cause and which is the effect. And if they say: it doesn't make sense the other way, or it's logically this way, laugh at them for being stupid.
Not all the letters that were sent, all letters that were received!
And who cares what yahoo wrote in it's TOS, it's contrary to established law that is centuries old.
Uh, no I don't.
Are you really going to spend lots of time going through every email and sending it to family - just in case you die?
No, he probably expected that they would have simple access to it in probate. Which is eventually what happened.
"Perhaps dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/sda may work better, though far slower."
/dev/urandom (about 4 minutes per 1GB but varies depending on CPU), and not /dev/random. But urandom is actually much slower then the disk itself so just using /dev/zero will help quite a bit - yes I am well aware the data can be retrieved - but it's costly, and by doing this you will most cetainly make it very hard for an adversary.
Don't do that - that will take months, if not years. It's about 1GB per month!
At the very least use
Oh engines can put out far far more force then brakes can handle.
Think about cars accelerating from 0-60 in 3.2 seconds.
Also see if you can prevent your car from moving by holding down the brakes and vrooming the engine.
You have a mistake in how much wire you actually need.
The reason for the "standard" wire sizes given in electrical code is that they are designed to be stuck in insulation, and conduit and other places where they can't dissipate heat.
However in this case first or all you are only running current for 4 seconds! So they hardly have time to heat up much, and second you can easily put some cooling fins on them.
You don't need anywhere near as much wire as you might think.
(i.e. if it's safe to run 15 amps in a wire for 1 minute - you can run 90 apms in it for 15 seconds! And on top of that the electical codes are spec'd for continuous use.)
Not a good idea - do that a couple of time and that page will wear more then the others, and it will be easy to find.
Ever notice some of the push button on combination locks are more worn then others?
"Either way, the icon will match the real extension."
Um, nope. Executables make their own icon. Give the executable an icon that looks like a picture.
What are you nuts?
A locksmith comes to you and says: look your lock can be picked in 30 seconds, but mine takes 3 minutes. And because he "broke the security of your lock" it means that you won't do business with him? (I'm assuming you actually care how hard it is to break in.)
I think it's very telling how hard it is to break a lock, in the world of real locks it's judged by how long it takes (since all locks can be broken as you say, but you conveniently forget to mention that there is a measure of how good a lock is: how long does it take).
In a computer you don't measure how long it takes to break in, but rather how much damage can be done if you do break in.
Please don't try to deliberately create a flawed/weaker analogy - and then break it ("all locks can be broken" big wow to you). That's called a straw man argument (look it up).
Oh it's much worse then that - it's a clock that shows base 60 in base 10 in base 2!
If you wanted it done correctly, it would just show the number of seconds since midnight in binary.
But no, first it converts the number of seconds to 3, base 60 digits, then each of those digits are converted to 2 base 10 digits, which are finally converted to 8 base 2 digits!
So it's Binary coded decimal coded sexagesimal! BCDCS
It's talking about internal resistance - not just some added resistor after the package.
The internal resistance can be thought of as how quickly the chemicals in the battery can recombine.
It doesn't help at all to add a resistor after the battery - it can still recombine it's chemicals quickly (and have a runaway meltdown). Adding a resistor just adds energy loss via the resistor!
If all you were worried about was an overload condition at the terminals, then what you need is a fuse!
I guess I missed posting this before the bulk of the posts, but maybe it'll help someone.
First: MD* SHA-* etc - they are all basically the SAME algorithm! The are just minor modifications of the same exact thing, so a break in one is a break in all.
Second: Tons and tons of people ask: can't we merge two hashes together and get a stronger one? Yes you can that's EXACTLY what MD* and HA-* DO! They are a combination of different hashes! That's how they work.
So if you really did have a good combo of hashes then just give them a name and use them as a hash - don't bother just plain merging existing ones.
Also, merging say MD5 and SHA-1 is pointless - they are both based on the same hashing code! You are gaining nothing by merging them.
They do make a distinction between the two masses, but it's only to make the math easier. And you missunderstood what I was saying by shooting the mass off of the earth - I am shooting 1g of mass, but 2g of energy off of the earth.
I can put it a different way: convert 1g of mass into energy, heat lets say. Then heat up the other 1g using all that energy. Now shoot the whole bundle off of the planet (using other energy). If, as you say, energy has no mass it will only take whatever force is needed to move 1g of mass to space. I say however it will take you twice as much force to move it - because it actually has a GRAVITATIONAL (and every other kind of) mass of 2g! Even though it's invariant mass is only 1g.
Convert the 1g of heat back to mass and drop it back down. You just dropped 2g of matter down on the planet - but you supposedly only shot up 1g of matter.
Energy is mass in every sense! There are no exceptions, and it doesn't matter what kind of energy. What makes things wierd is that energy can be relative (speed for instance). That's why they usually use invariany mass for calculations - it's much simpler. However it does lead to errros if you are not careful.
And about light moving in a path indepenedent of it's mass: did you actually read the article? I was going to tell you that it's true only to a first approximation, but then I read the article and it says it right there, so you can read it for yourself.
That's not true - it can't be true. It would violate conservation of energy.
Additionally if what you are saying is true then inertial mass and gravitational mass are not always the same, which is not the case.
Here's how it violates conservation of energy:
Convert 1g of matter entirely to energy. Use the energy to accelerate some matter to close to the speed of light (thereby giving that matter exactly 1g of extra relativistic mass), and shoot it off of the surface of the earth.
Then on the other end convert it back to mass. Now you just moved 1g of matter off of the planet, drop it back down to the planet and collect the energy. Repeat as often as you like.
Mass and energy are EXACTLY equal - always.
Energy has a gravitational attraction, just like mass does.
In fact you are thinking about it backward - it's actually energy that has gravity, not mass. Mass just apears to have garvity because it's really energy.
Another proof of this is that light also gets influenced by gravity. And gravity is always a two way street.
Exactly! You just proved my point. The only thing you've observed is natural selection (AKA survival of the fittest). You have never observed evolution.
And contrary to ignorant belief the two are not the same thing.
>>Surely, if it is changing quickly then it is evolving even more than normal.
Wrong. Bacterias are designed to change - but they never change out of their boundaries.
>>Programmed in what sense? Are you saying that you agree that genes exist and you think they were programmed by God so that we change over time so that the fittest survive; that's called evolution.
Yes that's almost what I'm saying - except that's survial of the fittest IS NOT EVOLUTION.
You are probably the millionth person to think so, but it's simply not the case.
Survival of the fittest is making one pre-existing species more populous then another one.
However evolution is changing one species into a different one.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. In survival of the fittest the species must already exist!
Quess what? They do, it's right in the text. In fact proving and disproving theories is how they teach physics.
Did you ever study physics?
Yet another poster without a clue of what evolution really is.
You didn't evolve the crabs. All you did is kill off the other kind, the samurai kind was already there.
So many people here are confusing natural selection with evolution. No matter how much you scream, you'll never make the two the same thing.
Once is proven and is testable, the other just an untestable theory.
For the interested: evolution: change one species into another.
Natural selection: from a preexisting species, make one more populous then the other.
What?
By your definition, how does evolution have more observed changes then relativity?
Relativity is the most observed theory off all time - and you can actually test it!
Evolution is a collection of untestable observations, with some outliers that don't quite meet the data.
Please, get a clue.
I don't mind if you call them both theories - but to claim evolution has more data then relativity? Did you learn any science at all?
Um, you may not know this, but stuff that's made by man, even if described in the bible doesn't have anywhere near the reliability of stuff made by god.
There's a reason why this passage describes who made this.
And BTW for the clueless, you do imagine that someone actually measured this pot right? And recorded what he measured - it's not prophecy after all. The reason these measurements are recorded is that the pot was very think. One measurement was an inner measurement, and the other was an outer measurement.
Do the math, go look up how much a hand breadth is, and figure the inner diameter was 10 cubits minus a hand breadth. Then see how 30 cubits compares with what you calculate for the inner circumference - you'll find it's quite accurate.
You're trying to be funny, but you're equating the level of knowledge of the shape of the earth, with the level of knowledge of evolution.
It's not even close.
It's quite obvious you know nothing at all about evolution, or you wouldn't even think of this joke. So as far as you are concerned it might as well be religion - you're just taking it on faith.
What are you talking about? Are you just making stuff up?
What does any of that have to do with evolution?
Evolution is genetic material changing in a way that's beyond what the genes are pre-programmed to do.
You may not know this, but genes are designed to be mutable. That's not evolution (children of the same parents don't all look alike - genes change, even in such a "simple" case). That's staying within the bounds of the genetic program. To give you an example, take twins, both with the same genes - if both sets of genes change in more of less the same way in response to something, that's by definition not evolution.
Evolution is totally random, going beyond that to something totally new, and that has never actually been seen.
People have looked, and looked and looked. And not once has a bacteria ever turning into something else. It's changed - but it's always remained a bacteria.
You have to remember that quick change in a bacteria is NOT evolution - bacteria genes are programmed for quick change.
Evolution has never been observed under any scale. The only thing that's been observed is a pre-existing trait in a species becoming more common, or obvious. But actual evolution has never been seen.