There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority
landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit
peaked." Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that he was number
two behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.
"Ah," the pilot remarked, "the dreaded seven-engine approach."
There was a (fairly awesome) BBC documentary I saw about this -- highest parachute record, is from a balloon, as you say. Yes, the guy was wearing a spacesuit and probably broke the sound barrier.
Now that sounds awesome and everything but what I'd really like to do is parachute from the ISS (or other tourist-space-station). Not possible now, sure, but can the physics geeks tell us if it'll be possible in our lifetime? Or do those kinds of speeds make it impossible to slow down fast enough? How about some kind of han-glider instead of a parachute -- heat-tyles on the bottam, and you sit on the top? Surfing at 50,000 feet and three times the speed of sound, how awesome would that be?
Apparently, it's one of the most amazing things it's possible to do. It's already on my life's to-do list, and that's only after seeing the video.
Still, it's not exactly a popular sport. At only half a dozen pilots worldwide, cluster ballooning remains something between an extreme sport and a personal eccentricity!
You weren't the only -- exactly the same thing here. Unfortunately, in Asia the principle will almost always side with the teacher -- even if the teacher is wrong.
Re:Great, here come the CP trolls
on
Revamping Freenet
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No offence but this has gotta be a troll. I I'm wrong, I do apologize.
First of all, like other children of the parent say, in most cases the benefits of a free (beer+speech), distributed, anonymous network outweigh the costs.
I have the right to let as many people I know understand that if they run a freenet node, they ARE aiding in the spread of child porn, that they are helping the worlds worst monsters commit their crimes. NO -- that is not a certainty. It is a possibility, maybe even a high or low probability, but it is NOT a certainty. Running a Freenet node does NOT entail that you are nessesarily aiding CP.
If you choose to support Freenet, and it's userbase, it represents a tacit approval of the material it's used to dissiminate. NO IT DOESNT. What it DOES represent is tacit approval of free speech (as you say, and I strongly agree with you, CP does not fall under this category). It does NOT represent tacit approval of CP.
As for the stylish issue, use mac-mini or a stylish mini-itx PC. Since your buying new, it won't be cheaper than the Apple tech but it will be cooler (in the geek sense), as well as more functional -- wanna streat tv to/from, use MythTV. Having friends over? A houseparty just aint a houseparty without winamp's milkdrop piped to the TV. Etc., etc., only limited by your imagination. As for power, that isn't really an arguement -- if you replace your all your lightbulbs with energy-efficient bulbs you'll save more than enough to run your setup.
Me, I'm looking into self-made hydroelectic power from a stream that runs past my grandma's house to power a cheap home beowulf-cluster. But that's probably a good 5 or 10 years off from now.
Out of curiosity, what software do you use for your Linux box dedicated to audio playback? Also, what hardware do you use for the FM transmitter?
Thinking of setting something like that up myself.
What's the point? Just hook up a small or old (depending on your tastes) computer to your stereo and stream the music through your network. Far cheaper, far more customizable, generally far better.
Interesting, see I'm kind of approaching bussiness with the dreaded fear that there's no money left... I love computers, and maniuplating programs, but I also like manipulating people. Here's hoping I'll be good at both...
And I hate bussiness. I still want to own my own company though! (Mainly so I can retire and go back what I really like doing, hacking!)
Ah, that might not go down to well with the troop leader. You don't wanna be upsetting the powers that be! What I'd say is this:
"Yeah, of course it's ok to except a free copy of a game or program from a friend. (pause) For example, -If my friend wrote the program! -If the program or game is a demo, which is supposed to be freely distributed (describes a demo), -... and so is shareware (describes shareware) -and of course Open Source! So, yeah, it's perfectly ok to accept a free copy of a program or game from someone!"
Abusing the powers-that-be: It's all in how you phrase it mate;-)
Although I don't fully understand the nature of the second arguement regarding omniscience, the first arguement is flawed.
Imagine, if you will, a large rock. Imagine, if you will, God. God attempts to move the large rock, which we shall say is as big as an elephant, and suceeds (obviously). Now let's make some bigger rocks (this is a hypothetical example, after all) and put them to God to see if he can lift them. An object the size of a large building? The size of a country? The size of a continent? The size of the Earth? God quickly runs out of places to "stand" -- where would God "stand" if he wanted to "lift" the Earth?
The flaw in your arguement, then, if your choice of language. Allow me to restate your paradox like this: "God can't be omnipotent because he cannot create an object with more mass than God has energy apply to move that mass. If he can, he's not omnipotent because he cannot supply a force large enough to move the mass. If he can't create such a mass, he's not omnipotent."
Now, I believe one of the laws of energy (as we understand them) is that energy cannot be created or removed, am I right? We can now imagine an object with a mass, such that it requires, in order to be moved, a force stronger than all the energy in the universe combined. God, supposedly, can create such an object because he, supposedly, created all other objects. But God can't supply a force strong enough to move it, which means he's not omnipotent.
BUT -- Remember God created these laws as well. God could abscend, just for a short while, the law that energy cannot be created and could then supply a force large enough to move the mass. Alternativley, he could abscend the law that for each action there is an opposite reaction and move the mass while expending no energy. How is it possible for him to do this? He's god, even in our hypothetical example. If the universe has a creator, then that, I suppose, would be the very deffintion of the creator -- being able to absend and create laws at will.
For me, the possibility that god exists is about 50/50. Like most condundrums in the world with factions of polar opposites, I expect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. For me, the possibility that the force that created us is the same as that described in the bible is also none-zero, but vanishingly small.
Perhaps Terry Jones, who wrote Starship Titanic while DNA was busy with other projects. Rumour has it he wrote it in the nude, and the copy of the book I had, had a photo of the author on the back leaf, in the nude, looking very dignified on a small chair wearing only a laptop. The writing is fairly good, and I'm not sure I wouldn't have known it was Adams had I not read the blurb.
I always assumed the "Trilogy in 5 Parts" came from clueless publishing houses who, not having bothered to read the first three books in question assumed they ended on the third book, published them as a trilogy and were red-faced when Adams submitted the fourth and fifth books. Of course, I'm probably wrong. I'm not sure why Mostly Harmless is disliked so -- it's certainly darker than the other 4 (although the entire universe of H2G2 is pretty bleak), but it has its moments.
Great post mate. As it happens I went to one of these "International Schools" and let me tell you -- the people there are (for the most part) richer than you or I will ever be. You know where these -- all of these -- "third-world computers" would be really useful?
America, in the types of schools that can barely afford a computer Lab in the first place. That's where they'd be really useful.
If you'll excuse me, Amnesty is doing a fair at my college and I promised I'd help out...
You must not have seen the BBC TV series that was made a (long) while back. I had the privilege of seeing them as one, long, uninterupted 12-hour sequence when we chanced upon it in a video store. It seemed very much like a 12-hour movie and for the life of me I don't understand why they're remaking H2G2 as a film -- they should just re-air the tv series in the thearters and be done with it.
Everything was perfect, from the delivery of jokes, to the Guide's long-winding asides (which worked out really well and somehow didn't interupt the pace at all)... br/It was like seeing what I'd always imagined H2G2 to be like.
Interestingly, I'm trying to do an identical thing with similar hardware (I have the RAID-1 2x250 GB array on Fedora). The problem is this: My mate in the States (I'm here in the UK) is still using Windows. We're trying rsync-over-ssh (for Windows-to-Linux) and something else, maybe rsync-over-ftp for Linux-to-Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
"Ah," the pilot remarked, "the dreaded seven-engine approach."
Now that sounds awesome and everything but what I'd really like to do is parachute from the ISS (or other tourist-space-station). Not possible now, sure, but can the physics geeks tell us if it'll be possible in our lifetime? Or do those kinds of speeds make it impossible to slow down fast enough? How about some kind of han-glider instead of a parachute -- heat-tyles on the bottam, and you sit on the top? Surfing at 50,000 feet and three times the speed of sound, how awesome would that be?
Daniel
Still, it's not exactly a popular sport. At only half a dozen pilots worldwide, cluster ballooning remains something between an extreme sport and a personal eccentricity!
You weren't the only -- exactly the same thing here. Unfortunately, in Asia the principle will almost always side with the teacher -- even if the teacher is wrong.
Just you ;-)
No offence but this has gotta be a troll. I I'm wrong, I do apologize.
First of all, like other children of the parent say, in most cases the benefits of a free (beer+speech), distributed, anonymous network outweigh the costs.
I have the right to let as many people I know understand that if they run a freenet node, they ARE aiding in the spread of child porn, that they are helping the worlds worst monsters commit their crimes. NO -- that is not a certainty. It is a possibility, maybe even a high or low probability, but it is NOT a certainty. Running a Freenet node does NOT entail that you are nessesarily aiding CP.
If you choose to support Freenet, and it's userbase, it represents a tacit approval of the material it's used to dissiminate. NO IT DOESNT. What it DOES represent is tacit approval of free speech (as you say, and I strongly agree with you, CP does not fall under this category). It does NOT represent tacit approval of CP.
As for the stylish issue, use mac-mini or a stylish mini-itx PC. Since your buying new, it won't be cheaper than the Apple tech but it will be cooler (in the geek sense), as well as more functional -- wanna streat tv to/from, use MythTV. Having friends over? A houseparty just aint a houseparty without winamp's milkdrop piped to the TV. Etc., etc., only limited by your imagination. As for power, that isn't really an arguement -- if you replace your all your lightbulbs with energy-efficient bulbs you'll save more than enough to run your setup. Me, I'm looking into self-made hydroelectic power from a stream that runs past my grandma's house to power a cheap home beowulf-cluster. But that's probably a good 5 or 10 years off from now.
... or have a single, dynamically-assigned IP address and run servers from their home.
Out of curiosity, what software do you use for your Linux box dedicated to audio playback? Also, what hardware do you use for the FM transmitter? Thinking of setting something like that up myself.
What's the point? Just hook up a small or old (depending on your tastes) computer to your stereo and stream the music through your network. Far cheaper, far more customizable, generally far better.
Interesting, see I'm kind of approaching bussiness with the dreaded fear that there's no money left... I love computers, and maniuplating programs, but I also like manipulating people. Here's hoping I'll be good at both...
And I hate bussiness. I still want to own my own company though! (Mainly so I can retire and go back what I really like doing, hacking!)
I'm pretty sure that was Paul Graham too.
Ah-hah! Now we know you are Steve Jobs, and that's a redundant address you don't use!
It's been done so many times. (Though the first one is still the best)
Actully, none of the regional googles were affected -- google.co.uk, google.co.th, etc.
Ah, that might not go down to well with the troop leader. You don't wanna be upsetting the powers that be! What I'd say is this:
;-)
"Yeah, of course it's ok to except a free copy of a game or program from a friend. (pause) For example,
-If my friend wrote the program!
-If the program or game is a demo, which is supposed to be freely distributed (describes a demo),
-... and so is shareware (describes shareware)
-and of course Open Source!
So, yeah, it's perfectly ok to accept a free copy of a program or game from someone!"
Abusing the powers-that-be: It's all in how you phrase it mate
Daniel
Although I don't fully understand the nature of the second arguement regarding omniscience, the first arguement is flawed.
Imagine, if you will, a large rock. Imagine, if you will, God. God attempts to move the large rock, which we shall say is as big as an elephant, and suceeds (obviously). Now let's make some bigger rocks (this is a hypothetical example, after all) and put them to God to see if he can lift them. An object the size of a large building? The size of a country? The size of a continent? The size of the Earth? God quickly runs out of places to "stand" -- where would God "stand" if he wanted to "lift" the Earth?
The flaw in your arguement, then, if your choice of language. Allow me to restate your paradox like this: "God can't be omnipotent because he cannot create an object with more mass than God has energy apply to move that mass. If he can, he's not omnipotent because he cannot supply a force large enough to move the mass. If he can't create such a mass, he's not omnipotent."
Now, I believe one of the laws of energy (as we understand them) is that energy cannot be created or removed, am I right? We can now imagine an object with a mass, such that it requires, in order to be moved, a force stronger than all the energy in the universe combined. God, supposedly, can create such an object because he, supposedly, created all other objects. But God can't supply a force strong enough to move it, which means he's not omnipotent.
BUT -- Remember God created these laws as well. God could abscend, just for a short while, the law that energy cannot be created and could then supply a force large enough to move the mass. Alternativley, he could abscend the law that for each action there is an opposite reaction and move the mass while expending no energy. How is it possible for him to do this? He's god, even in our hypothetical example. If the universe has a creator, then that, I suppose, would be the very deffintion of the creator -- being able to absend and create laws at will.
For me, the possibility that god exists is about 50/50. Like most condundrums in the world with factions of polar opposites, I expect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. For me, the possibility that the force that created us is the same as that described in the bible is also none-zero, but vanishingly small.
Daniel
Perhaps Terry Jones, who wrote Starship Titanic while DNA was busy with other projects. Rumour has it he wrote it in the nude, and the copy of the book I had, had a photo of the author on the back leaf, in the nude, looking very dignified on a small chair wearing only a laptop. The writing is fairly good, and I'm not sure I wouldn't have known it was Adams had I not read the blurb.
I always assumed the "Trilogy in 5 Parts" came from clueless publishing houses who, not having bothered to read the first three books in question assumed they ended on the third book, published them as a trilogy and were red-faced when Adams submitted the fourth and fifth books. Of course, I'm probably wrong. I'm not sure why Mostly Harmless is disliked so -- it's certainly darker than the other 4 (although the entire universe of H2G2 is pretty bleak), but it has its moments.
America, in the types of schools that can barely afford a computer Lab in the first place. That's where they'd be really useful.
If you'll excuse me, Amnesty is doing a fair at my college and I promised I'd help out...
It does pay for the BBC and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than cable. Theres more to watch too.
And it's a helluvalot better quality programming. One of the few good things about living in this island really...
You must not have seen the BBC TV series that was made a (long) while back. I had the privilege of seeing them as one, long, uninterupted 12-hour sequence when we chanced upon it in a video store. It seemed very much like a 12-hour movie and for the life of me I don't understand why they're remaking H2G2 as a film -- they should just re-air the tv series in the thearters and be done with it.
Everything was perfect, from the delivery of jokes, to the Guide's long-winding asides (which worked out really well and somehow didn't interupt the pace at all)...
br/It was like seeing what I'd always imagined H2G2 to be like.
so I can add it in my preferences.
Different strokes, dude.
Huh. I had to live with one of them. Not a pleasant experiance.
Interestingly, I'm trying to do an identical thing with similar hardware (I have the RAID-1 2x250 GB array on Fedora). The problem is this: My mate in the States (I'm here in the UK) is still using Windows. We're trying rsync-over-ssh (for Windows-to-Linux) and something else, maybe rsync-over-ftp for Linux-to-Windows.
I really don't think it'll work...
Daniel
Swimming: To move through water by means of the limbs, fins, or tail.
Yes I can
Swimming: To move as though gliding through water
No I can't