There are some reports that fullerenes, the carbon nano-particles, have dangerous health risks.
So, people who spend their life researching this for labs are very motivated to produce a product from it so their life's work brings them wealth, and are not exactly incentivized to consider possible health risks.
They are already putting nanoparticles into clothing and paint and other uses.
I hope we do not have millions of people getting cancer so that some people can get rich from buckeyballs. Why not just pay them off for doing research which is positive?
like i care... when i read slashdot all i hear is a bunch of spoiled brats whining about not being able to steal any music any time they want, and how they would do anything to protect that right.
to get an idea of how little regard i have for these type people, realize that i probably think just about as badly of the RIAA as any of you, and they and their bullshit antics and foul pissy whining are way down below that.
this is standard fare on slashdot, and just to bring the subject up gets called trolling.
I happen to think that any group needs sometimes to hear an opposing opinion lest they fall into group think, which is what slashdot is, so I feel it is perfectly justified to become abusive and nasty when this is not recognized and groupthink is allowed to prevail over a group that underneath it all would be very capable of intelligence if they had some moderators with a fucking clue doing their job instead of being trolls themselves on a power trip.
Hey Slashdot, fuck you brainless jerks calling my post troll, the idea of real deomcracy and responsibility is so foreign and off your scope that is all you can say. You morons are clueless.
I have been reading through these posts, and though I really do not like the recording industry you consumers match them in greed, and display it blatantly in public with profanity and total disregard for civilized behavior.
Then you turn around and talk about using the vote to enforce your anti-social behavior by threatening to oust your local politician based on this one issue.
First, it will never work so your blowing smoke, second if this is what democracy has become no wonder our current government and corporations has lost all respect for it and tries to override it.
You people make me puke, you are so busy chasing ways to steal the crappy music you are being sold that you do not even realize the effect you are having on your own self, and society. You are like addicted robots with an infinite spoiled brat loop running.
Hahaha, Vic-20, the wonder computer of the 1980's said William Shatner - was also my first foray into computing.
It had a big whooping 3.5K worth of memory, and I expanded that for over $100 to 16K. Never got a tape recorder, but on a trip to Washington DC I picked up a 160K single-sided single density 5 3/4 inch floppy drive for over $500.
I cannot believe how much money sank into that little system over time, but it was the perfect learning platform... graphics, assembly language, forth, sound, basic, light pen.
I loved it and I am sorry I ever threw it away when I got my first B&W 8088 PC & 64K of RAM with the 1200 baud modem.
not everything technological came from the space program, and besides would you argue as vehemently for war as you would for space exploration when you find out how much war made our technology progress??
I don't think it hurts to explore space in a reasonable way. We can learn something and extend out senses our into the universe.
I agree with your sentiment however, that before we think about going into space ourselves we ought to get the Earth in some kind of sustainable situation.
It just gets worse and worse and the stupidity of man unless we start thinking is going to kill the planet dead at some future date.
The other thing is that humans were born and evolved to live on this planet, with this air, with this amount of radiation, eating plants and animals that evolved and grew here as well.
The idea of living in space may be romantic for some people, but the reality I am sure would be so depressing and sad... like an animal in a cage, killing the last vestige of wildness and Earthly organic contact in our beings before we become as ants in a nest or bees in a hive. It is sad how some people rush headlong into something they have not thought about.
> We will keep doing it because we have an innate desire to make things > better for ourselves. And guess what! That is "nature" taking it's course > because we are part of nature, not separate from it.
I'd like to disagree with this statement.
I think you can say this in the great sense that everything that happens in the universe is part of nature, and it is true, but meaningless.
Words and thought move forward by differentiation, and the differentiation I'd like to make is that natural processes are formed by the raw flow of time. Wind erosion, water erosion, evolution.
If you look at living systems they have all evolved together in a web of weird and wonderful forms that humans can only appreciate and understand in a very limited way... because we do not have the ability to see a force that operates over thousands of years, or millions of years, and understand it.
Oh, we do pretty good for the hairless chimps we are, don't get me wrong, we're amazing... but, to distinguish between natural and artificial is like talking about how genetic engineering gets into the mechanics of a cell and changes it in ways that time evolution never would, and it could be extrememly dangerous.
I am just saying we do not know, and we ought to have some respect for natural things. That is where we came from and what we came up besides. I would think it would be a disaster if at some point the human race was left with a dead planet, and no environment except something like a space station or submarine's artitifical one.
Systems like nature of the climate are complex to the point that we do not understand them... and even if someone did, it is not proveable that they did, and anyway people believe that they want to believe about this stuff.
Personally I am not sure about global warming being human caused, but I do know that we are screwing with nature, and it is killing the planet. Every life system on the planet is in serious decline, and we are not even talking about reversing that trend, we are just screwing it up more.
I think the goal should not be sidetracked by global warming. This would be a slow process, so we should study it, and ideas like this one are good technologies to try should be need them.
The goal should be to get our population under control,and the inputs we take from nature, and the outputs we put into nature.
Not to mention it would be nice if we would live aside nature instead of stomping all over it and killing it.
Face it, the only reason we are seeing the global warming scenario even taken a little bit seriously is that somebody sees a great way to make money off it.
Namely, the nuclear power industry. For so many years the energy industries all fought tooth and nail to humiliate anyone who even pursued any line of thought similar to - we should not screw up the planet.
Now that there is money to be made by playing along, we see the nuclear industry talking about how clean nuclear is WRT CO2.
Maybe I am just getting too cynical, but that's what I think.
> high noon, the sun delivers about a billion watts to a square > mile of the Earth's surface, give or take
That's very interesting... could you tell me where you found that out. I tried to derive that number one time... forget what I got, but I got the suns output and then divided it by the area of a sphere 93 millions miles in radius.
I do not agree with peak oil, and all the rhetoric. It is just plain common sense that unless we want to hack up and consume the planet, ie. have no respect for the Earth and the life process, that we humans need to control our numbers and our inputs and outputs to the bioshphere.
Why is that so hard for people to understand, and why do they have to understand it and express it is ways that insult and alienate other people so that the probability of it ever happening approaches 0?
This sounds like science fiction from the 40s and 50s, and makes me really nervous. Human beings just do not have a clue yet are willing to grab hold of the future of this planet and play with it twiddling primitive knobs that we only understand in basic controlled ways.
The problem is that the Earth has been evolving for a long long time and there is no instruction book or understanding what the rules are. We could set off some runaway process that could lead the misery for everyone.
Why can't we all just live together in peace, and then decide that we do not mess up the Earth with pollution or major changes.
After all there is no need, except for the profit of some small group of people who are willing to live high on the hog uncaring about what happens to everyone else.
Yes, but to complete the cycle install a video surveillance system into every car that overwrites the last hour of data continuously. When you see someone doing something illegal that your cameras have picked it, it downloads the video into the device and sticks it to the offending car, as well as ids you so you can be a witness.
The other day they admitted to an "error" when they translated the Iranian President's comments to something like - Iran has the right and will develop nuclear weapons - from what they said really was - Iran has the right to develop nuclear power.
When you think about how big the world is and few channels of information there really are, and then couple that with your own experience with people that probably most of us have had where there is some personal incident in your personal circle of friends, and how hard it can be to determine what happened.
We are living in total news fantasy, and our respective governments own us to the extent they can force us into situations that demand certain actions in order to get the carrot, avoid the stick, or get along with our neighbors who probably all think the same thing we do.
putty n. pl. putties
- A doughlike cement made by mixing whiting and linseed oil, used to
- fill holes in woodwork and secure panes of glass.
- A substance with a similar consistency or function.
- A fine lime cement used as a finishing coat on plaster.
- A yellowish or light brownish gray to grayish yellow or light grayish brown.
beige ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bzh) n.
- A light grayish brown or yellowish brown to grayish yellow.
- A soft fabric of undyed, unbleached wool.
the object in orbit is continually falling, but moving away from the center of the system.
the object is going on 1 direction... it has horizontal velocity, when you remove that it will fall due to gravity.
so, if you could both stop the object, meaning throw it backwards so that it stops rotating relative to the center of the system it will start falling.
additionally, if you can impart momentum towards that center then it will "fall" even faster.
since there is no way in hell a "throw" from a any person would conceivably have enough force to stop an object from orbiting regardless of which way you "throw" it, I just thought that would be funny to mention.
If you are in orbit, and all you can do is throw something I think you are stuck there was my point, which perhaps did not address your question.
Let's neglect atmosphere. Anyway you throw it you just give it an impulse that alters its energy state, ie. momentum.
forward: you push it to a higher orbit by adding to
its momentum.
backward: lower orbit.
up: well, you wouldn't do this, but essentially you
would just change the shape of the orbit.
down: same as up, except if you can shove it so hard
that it impacts or interacts physically with the earth
it slows down because more forces act on it.
you have to slow down using some force... ie. the atmosphere, without slowing down you cannot do it.
I think the problem with that is that if you do not decrease the straight ahead velocity vector it will pop right back up because it will skip off the atmosphere.
you have to stop it, you cannot just shove it down, or out, or forward of backward... it must lose energy, so unless you can shove it down so hard and fast that you push it into the atmoshere and it slows down, it will pop up again, or if you push it backwards it will just assume a lower orbit unless the atmostphere interferes.
the answer is... if you had to throw you... you could not do it.
Hmmm, that's funny, I would like to buy one just for the hell of it... like a donation, I would even pay more in order to subsidize others... otherwise how would you know what kind of experience millions of economy users are having and how you might imprive it or build on it?
I agree with you there... it is like these two groups do not see reality the same, to trying to ease in ONE fact that disagrees with their entire reality does not compute.
There is a saying I heard a little while ago that goes like this:
"Never try to reason someone out of a position they did not
reason themselves into first."
I admit I am biased towards the left, but I also have a lot of conservtive beliefs as well, what trumps is my vision of what the future looks like under what I see happening now. It is not that I do not agree with some of the conservative ideas, but their implementation is fatally flawed.
I do not want perpetual war. I do not want an even more positive feedback loop for taxes, profit, benefits to go to the rich while the middle, working and poor have to pay for it all, and all the war to protect these riched they do not partake in.
I believe in the theory that the crime rate has gone down so much because of the ability for women in marginal positions in life to decide what happens to their embryos. I do not like abortion, I was a product of a forced marriage and would not even exist if that was an opportunity for my mother at the time... however I would never have known about it, and I did not many advantages of an upper middle class life.
What I see arguments as pointing out are the ablity of both sides to nit-pick. I see the Republicans as following the letter of the law, making arguments, built on other arguments, that go in a direction they want, but not the spirit of the law, which is what most liberals seem to be pointing out.
Both side think they are right, and even if they do not think they are right, they will rationalize, or find a way to do what is best for them... the problem is when an elite gets to decide what is best for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
There are some reports that fullerenes, the carbon
nano-particles, have dangerous health risks.
So, people who spend their life researching this for
labs are very motivated to produce a product from it
so their life's work brings them wealth, and are not
exactly incentivized to consider possible health risks.
They are already putting nanoparticles into clothing
and paint and other uses.
I hope we do not have millions of people getting cancer
so that some people can get rich from buckeyballs.
Why not just pay them off for doing research which is
positive?
like i care
to get an idea of how little regard i have for these type people, realize
that i probably think just about as badly of the RIAA as any of you, and
they and their bullshit antics and foul pissy whining are way down
below that.
this is standard fare on slashdot, and just to bring the subject up
gets called trolling.
I happen to think that any group needs sometimes to hear an opposing
opinion lest they fall into group think, which is what slashdot is,
so I feel it is perfectly justified to become abusive and nasty when
this is not recognized and groupthink is allowed to prevail over
a group that underneath it all would be very capable of intelligence
if they had some moderators with a fucking clue doing their job instead
of being trolls themselves on a power trip.
Hey Slashdot, fuck you brainless jerks calling my post troll,
the idea of real deomcracy and responsibility is so foreign
and off your scope that is all you can say. You morons are
clueless.
I have been reading through these posts, and though I really do not
like the recording industry you consumers match them in greed, and
display it blatantly in public with profanity and total disregard for
civilized behavior.
Then you turn around and talk about using the vote to enforce your
anti-social behavior by threatening to oust your local politician
based on this one issue.
First, it will never work so your blowing smoke, second if this is
what democracy has become no wonder our current government and
corporations has lost all respect for it and tries to override it.
You people make me puke, you are so busy chasing ways to steal the
crappy music you are being sold that you do not even realize the
effect you are having on your own self, and society. You are like
addicted robots with an infinite spoiled brat loop running.
Hahaha, Vic-20, the wonder computer of the 1980's said William Shatner -
was also my first foray into computing.
It had a big whooping 3.5K worth of memory, and I expanded that for over
$100 to 16K. Never got a tape recorder, but on a trip to Washington DC
I picked up a 160K single-sided single density 5 3/4 inch floppy drive
for over $500.
I cannot believe how much money sank into that little system over time,
but it was the perfect learning platform
forth, sound, basic, light pen.
I loved it and I am sorry I ever threw it away when I got my first B&W
8088 PC & 64K of RAM with the 1200 baud modem.
Brings back a lot of memories for sure.
There is something there that we can "see" or detect.
One of the missions put a laser reflector up there in order
to measure the distance to the moon and back very accuratly.
So if you shoot a last up to the moon in a specific spot you
will get a refection back in so many millseconds.
not everything technological came from the space program,
and besides would you argue as vehemently for war as you
would for space exploration when you find out how much
war made our technology progress??
I don't think it hurts to explore space in a reasonable way.
We can learn something and extend out senses our into the
universe.
I agree with your sentiment however, that before we think about
going into space ourselves we ought to get the Earth in some
kind of sustainable situation.
It just gets worse and worse and the stupidity of man unless we
start thinking is going to kill the planet dead at some future
date.
The other thing is that humans were born and evolved to live on
this planet, with this air, with this amount of radiation, eating
plants and animals that evolved and grew here as well.
The idea of living in space may be romantic for some people, but
the reality I am sure would be so depressing and sad
animal in a cage, killing the last vestige of wildness and Earthly
organic contact in our beings before we become as ants in a nest or
bees in a hive. It is sad how some people rush headlong into something
they have not thought about.
> We will keep doing it because we have an innate desire to make things
... because we do not have the ability to see
... but, to distinguish between natural and artificial
> better for ourselves. And guess what! That is "nature" taking it's course
> because we are part of nature, not separate from it.
I'd like to disagree with this statement.
I think you can say this in the great sense that everything that happens
in the universe is part of nature, and it is true, but meaningless.
Words and thought move forward by differentiation, and the differentiation
I'd like to make is that natural processes are formed by the raw flow
of time. Wind erosion, water erosion, evolution.
If you look at living systems they have all evolved together in a web
of weird and wonderful forms that humans can only appreciate and understand
in a very limited way
a force that operates over thousands of years, or millions of years,
and understand it.
Oh, we do pretty good for the hairless chimps we are, don't get me wrong,
we're amazing
is like talking about how genetic engineering gets into the mechanics
of a cell and changes it in ways that time evolution never would, and
it could be extrememly dangerous.
I am just saying we do not know, and we ought to have some respect
for natural things. That is where we came from and what we came up
besides. I would think it would be a disaster if at some point the
human race was left with a dead planet, and no environment except
something like a space station or submarine's artitifical one.
Systems like nature of the climate are complex to the point that ... and even if someone did, it is not
,and the
we do not understand them
proveable that they did, and anyway people believe that they want
to believe about this stuff.
Personally I am not sure about global warming being human caused,
but I do know that we are screwing with nature, and it is killing
the planet. Every life system on the planet is in serious decline,
and we are not even talking about reversing that trend, we are just
screwing it up more.
I think the goal should not be sidetracked by global warming. This
would be a slow process, so we should study it, and ideas like this
one are good technologies to try should be need them.
The goal should be to get our population under control
inputs we take from nature, and the outputs we put into nature.
Not to mention it would be nice if we would live aside nature
instead of stomping all over it and killing it.
Face it, the only reason we are seeing the global warming scenario
even taken a little bit seriously is that somebody sees a great way
to make money off it.
Namely, the nuclear power industry. For so many years the energy
industries all fought tooth and nail to humiliate anyone who even
pursued any line of thought similar to - we should not screw up the
planet.
Now that there is money to be made by playing along, we see the
nuclear industry talking about how clean nuclear is WRT CO2.
Maybe I am just getting too cynical, but that's what I think.
> high noon, the sun delivers about a billion watts to a square
... could you tell me where you found that out. ... forget what I got, but I
> mile of the Earth's surface, give or take
That's very interesting
I tried to derive that number one time
got the suns output and then divided it by the area of a sphere
93 millions miles in radius.
I agree with your solution completely.
I do not agree with peak oil, and all the rhetoric.
It is just plain common sense that unless we want to
hack up and consume the planet, ie. have no respect
for the Earth and the life process, that we humans
need to control our numbers and our inputs and outputs
to the bioshphere.
Why is that so hard for people to understand, and why
do they have to understand it and express it is ways
that insult and alienate other people so that the
probability of it ever happening approaches 0?
This sounds like science fiction from the 40s and 50s, and makes
me really nervous. Human beings just do not have a clue yet are
willing to grab hold of the future of this planet and play with
it twiddling primitive knobs that we only understand in basic
controlled ways.
The problem is that the Earth has been evolving for a long long time
and there is no instruction book or understanding what the rules are.
We could set off some runaway process that could lead the misery for
everyone.
Why can't we all just live together in peace, and then decide that
we do not mess up the Earth with pollution or major changes.
After all there is no need, except for the profit of some small group
of people who are willing to live high on the hog uncaring about
what happens to everyone else.
regrettable, but it's called collateral damage. ;-)
Yes, but to complete the cycle install a video surveillance system into every car that overwrites the last hour of data continuously. When you see someone doing something illegal that your cameras have picked it, it downloads the video into the device and sticks it to the offending car, as well as ids you so you can be a witness.
The other day they admitted to an "error" when they translated
the Iranian President's comments to something like - Iran has the
right and will develop nuclear weapons - from what they said really
was - Iran has the right to develop nuclear power.
When you think about how big the world is and few channels of
information there really are, and then couple that with your own
experience with people that probably most of us have had where
there is some personal incident in your personal circle of friends,
and how hard it can be to determine what happened.
We are living in total news fantasy, and our respective governments
own us to the extent they can force us into situations that demand
certain actions in order to get the carrot, avoid the stick, or
get along with our neighbors who probably all think the same thing
we do.
> Come on now. There exists no fourm anywhere that is more pro Google /. If /. things there is a problem with Google then there IS a
/. infallible? Maybe they should run for Pope.
> than
> problem
Unless there is not, what makes
putty n. pl. putties
- A doughlike cement made by mixing whiting and linseed oil, used to
- fill holes in woodwork and secure panes of glass.
- A substance with a similar consistency or function.
- A fine lime cement used as a finishing coat on plaster.
- A yellowish or light brownish gray to grayish yellow or light grayish brown.
beige ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bzh) n.
- A light grayish brown or yellowish brown to grayish yellow.
- A soft fabric of undyed, unbleached wool.
maybe i was misled by your use of the word throw.
... it has horizontal
the object in orbit is continually falling, but moving
away from the center of the system.
the object is going on 1 direction
velocity, when you remove that it will fall due to gravity.
so, if you could both stop the object, meaning throw it
backwards so that it stops rotating relative to the center
of the system it will start falling.
additionally, if you can impart momentum towards that center
then it will "fall" even faster.
since there is no way in hell a "throw" from a any person
would conceivably have enough force to stop an object from
orbiting regardless of which way you "throw" it, I just
thought that would be funny to mention.
If you are in orbit, and all you can do is throw something
I think you are stuck there was my point, which perhaps did
not address your question.
You cannot get there from here.
Let's neglect atmosphere. Anyway you throw it you just
give it an impulse that alters its energy state, ie.
momentum.
forward: you push it to a higher orbit by adding to
its momentum.
backward: lower orbit.
up: well, you wouldn't do this, but essentially you
would just change the shape of the orbit.
down: same as up, except if you can shove it so hard
that it impacts or interacts physically with the earth
it slows down because more forces act on it.
you have to slow down using some force
atmosphere, without slowing down you cannot do it.
I think the problem with that is that if you do not decrease
the straight ahead velocity vector it will pop right back up
because it will skip off the atmosphere.
you have to stop it, you cannot just shove it down, or out,
or forward of backward
you can shove it down so hard and fast that you push it into
the atmoshere and it slows down, it will pop up again, or
if you push it backwards it will just assume a lower orbit
unless the atmostphere interferes.
the answer is
do it.
can we call it putty please, its always nice to get putty.
Hmmm, that's funny, I would like to buy one just for the
hell of it
order to subsidize others
what kind of experience millions of economy users are having
and how you might imprive it or build on it?
I agree with you there
see reality the same, to trying to ease in ONE fact that
disagrees with their entire reality does not compute.
There is a saying I heard a little while ago that goes like this:
"Never try to reason someone out of a position they did not
reason themselves into first."
I admit I am biased towards the left, but I also have a lot of
conservtive beliefs as well, what trumps is my vision of what
the future looks like under what I see happening now. It is
not that I do not agree with some of the conservative ideas,
but their implementation is fatally flawed.
I do not want perpetual war. I do not want an even more
positive feedback loop for taxes, profit, benefits to go to
the rich while the middle, working and poor have to pay for
it all, and all the war to protect these riched they do not
partake in.
I believe in the theory that the crime rate has gone down
so much because of the ability for women in marginal positions
in life to decide what happens to their embryos. I do not like
abortion, I was a product of a forced marriage and would not
even exist if that was an opportunity for my mother at the
time
not many advantages of an upper middle class life.
What I see arguments as pointing out are the ablity of both
sides to nit-pick. I see the Republicans as following the
letter of the law, making arguments, built on other arguments,
that go in a direction they want, but not the spirit of the
law, which is what most liberals seem to be pointing out.
Both side think they are right, and even if they do not think
they are right, they will rationalize, or find a way to do what
is best for them
decide what is best for everyone.