Exactly. I lost a finger and a leg to one of those metal-edged rulers.
Oh, wait...no, I didn't.
I'm really not that worried about what can happen with a metal-edged ruler. Yes, you can smack someone with a ruler and leave a painful welt. Yes, you can leave a gash if you hit someone with the metal edge. Those types of injuries are kind of irrelevant, however, because that's not the way a ruler is *supposed* to be used. If you start evaluating the potential ways an object can be misused to intentionally inflict injury upon others, then there really isn't much in the world that will be left. Ultimately, the most dangerous weapon in the world is the human mind, because in a pinch, I can use an Ethernet cable, a chair, a belt, a pencil, a ruler, a magazine, or pretty much anything around me as a weapon. Some (guns, knives, nuclear bombs) are more efficient than others (pencil, ruler, magazine), but the potential for destruction is pretty much only limited by your imagination and creativity.
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but seriously...there may, in fact, be a lot of things that religion has managed to screw up, but I think this is a bit of a stretch. Can you really find some place in Genesis where it says, "Thou shalt be overprotective and coddling of your children, lest they grow up to be braver than thine own self"? 'Cause I seemed to have missed that commandment in my reading.
My absolute, all-time, favorite science class was eighth grade science. We would have a short (ten minute) lecture at the beginning of class, then open our lab books and actually *do* the experiments. We mixed zinc and hydrochloric acid, then collected the gas that resulted in a test tube, and performed tests (like sticking a match in the test tube) to determine what properties the gas had (it was hydrogen, so you can see why the match test sticks in my mind). We poured a couple of drops of turpentine in the lid of a baby food jar, set it on fire, then collected the carbon that was given off. It was such a cool class, because we actually *did* stuff. I was utterly disappointed when I moved to a new school half-way through the semester, and the science class at the new school was your typical "read the book, listen to the lecture, watch the movie, try to stay awake" drivel.
Actually, after reviewing it a bit, I think I may have been wrong when I posted earlier.
A parabola will concentrate rays that arrive *nearly parallel and normal to the directrix* on the focus. Alternatively, any light/heat/sound/whatever source that is shining from the focus will be reflected off the parabola into nearly parallel (and normal to the directrix) rays. However, rays coming in at extreme angles will *not* be concentrated at the focus. Consequently, I think that as the sun moves above the hotel, the hot spot would move as well. My apologies to vlm; he was right.
I think you are right, too...it would be quite interesting to see how the suns rays are focused on different areas of the pool and courtyard. Not to mention, I'd be rather unhappy if the hotel knew that this was happening, but never bothered to alert me to the fact and I was burned as a result.
Ummm...I see where you are coming from, but I don't think your analogy is quite accurate. Moving the sun with respect to the parabola is equivalent to moving the parabola with respect to the sun if you are talking about whether or not you will still have a focal point regardless of where your radiant source is. Moving the sun with respect to the parabola is NOT equivalent to moving the parabola with respect to the sun when you are talking about where the afore-mentioned focal point will be located in reference to the parabola.
Look, I'm every bit as paranoid of the government as any other tin-foil hat/.'er. Just look at my comment history if you want proof of that. However, even I understand that governments have to have the ability to track down and punish criminals, because the alternative is even worse. IMHO, the Founding Fathers did a pretty good job of setting up a system that recognizes the cold, hard facts of living in the real world (searches, seizures, warrants, etc.) while protecting the populace from abuse (judicial oversight, separation of powers). Unfortunately, they didn't set term limits, and "We the People" have gotten complacent and lazy in the last 200 years. I fear we are about to get a rude awakening...
Let's take your "whole picture" one step farther, then. Is surveillance (i.e., tailing you, watching you from a stake-out) okay? What happens if a cop just happens to be there when you commit a crime?
Let's go another direction. You say wiretapping is unethical. Is it unethical to kill someone? Then, what about having armed police officers? In the U.S., your average cop is armed. As another/.'er in the U.K. (IIRC) pointed out the other day, in other parts of the world, only the S.W.A.T./C.E.R.T./whatever-it-was-he-called-them units are armed. In either case, there is a branch of LEOs that is equipped and authorized to use deadly force. Do you propose to disarm the police forces? Okay, what about the military? Or are you arguing that wiretaps are evil, but deadly force is okay?
"The end justifies the means" is an argument for doing something unethical for the "Greater Good." Your argument presupposes that wiretaps are unethical. I disagree. Rather, I think it is a compromise that recognizes the fact that there are grey areas. That compromise is necessary because the alternative is anarchy. And if you think that's a viable option ("heh, heh...no one tellin' *me* what to do!"), you might want to look at what's been happening in places like Uganda for the last thirty years.
That was kind of the point behind all of the hue and cry here on/. and elsewhere about the government's drive to have backdoors installed in everything. First, I don't trust either of the last two administrations to have the ability to listen in on any conversation -- data or voice -- any time they wish without having to get the warrants authorizing the wiretaps. Second, even if I did trust either of these administrations (which I don't, just to be clear), there is absolutely NO fricken way to guarantee that others WON'T abuse those backdoors.
It's almost funny (in a tragic kind of way) that it took an abusive regime overseas to prove the point (and much sooner than I expected, I admit).
Ummm... no. The biggest reason we fight wiretaps is because they are wrong.
I, sir, see your "ummm...no" and raise you another "ummm...no".
Wiretaps, used with proper judicial oversight, for legitimate law-enforcement purposes, are not wrong. If a wiretap provides the proof that a violent criminal actually committed the crime for which they are being charged, then that is a good thing. The problem exists when a government -- any government -- uses wiretaps for illegitimate purposes. For example, to spy on the population in general (for example, the NSA wiretapping), to maintain a party in power against the populace's wishes (Iran), or without receiving the proper warrants to listen in on private conversations (NSL's).
While I think O.P. might be going a bit far to say, "It's not that we don't trust our government..." because I don't trust any government with unchecked power. However, you come off sounding like either a complete wacko or a naive 12-year old when you make a blanket statement like that. There is precious little in the world that's *THAT* black and white.
Does that make it any less true? Franklin's point essentially was that if you aren't willing to participate in securing your freedoms, you don't deserve them. I fail to see how your explanation of the context makes that point any less true when you are talking about preserving the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution from your own government.
"Slippery slope?" Wake up, bro...we've already fallen off the end of the slide, and now we're plummeting towards the pool. Did I mention there are piranhas in the water?
The difference between guns and encryption is that a modern economy can function without guns...
Really? Are you certain about that? Ever see the guys carrying cash to refill an ATM machine? What do they have strapped to their hips? How about those friendly people driving those cars with the cool, flashing lights on top? What are they carrying on their belts? I'll give you a hint: those aren't 2048-bit RSA keys, they're guns, because without guns to enforce the laws that say "Thou shalt not steal," every 2-bit thief in the country would be a lot richer, and what would your modern economy look like then?
Fix the existing laws to provide adequate protections and judicial oversight ("Due Process"), and we'll talk. It can even be retroactive oversight, so long as it's there.
Until then, as far as I'm concerned, this is just another attempt by the suits in office to scare the sheeple into "behaving"...so they can continue to fleece America, because without a judicial watchdog, you have no way to prove otherwise. And if that doesn't scare you, then my friend, you haven't studied history long enough.
A random group of people could govern better and I would trust them more.
That's absolutely brilliant. Maybe its time we select our elected officials the same way we select jurors. I seriously doubt they could do any worse than the clowns we keep voting into office.
Ummm...Paul was a Roman citizen and is frequently credited with writing most of the New Testament. Got any other prejudices you'd like to have disproved?
Many of the books that did not make it into the officially accepted cannon are easily available today, if you look for them: for example, the Apocrypha (which I think might be accepted by the Catholic Church -- but not being Catholic, I'm not certain of that) or the Book of Phillip.
At a simple level, there isn't really much difference between an airplane and a helicopter:
Airplane: relative wind over a curved airfoil (the wing) generates lift, and the airplane lifts into the air.
Helicopter: relative wind over a curved airfoil (the rotor blade) generates lift, and the helicopter lifts into the air.
There are several differences in capability based upon the method in which the relative wind is generated, and there are several differences in control problems that must be overcome in either case, but the aerodynamics governing aircraft flight and helicopter flight really aren't that different; it's still a matter of, "if lift > weight, you fly."
IIRC, I believe it was not just the extreme heat, but the pressure and extremely corrosive atmosphere that make Venus so incredibly inhospitable. In other words, just because the sensors can stand the heat of a volcano does not necessarily mean they can withstand the atmospheric pressure and corrosive atmosphere of Venus.
Slashdot Mirror
Ooooooooooh-kay...
<backs away slowly>
Nuts...that's twice in the comments for this article you've one-upped me :)
You are my new hero :)
I don't know. They had removed them all from the science kits by the time I got one :(
Exactly. I lost a finger and a leg to one of those metal-edged rulers.
Oh, wait...no, I didn't.
I'm really not that worried about what can happen with a metal-edged ruler. Yes, you can smack someone with a ruler and leave a painful welt. Yes, you can leave a gash if you hit someone with the metal edge. Those types of injuries are kind of irrelevant, however, because that's not the way a ruler is *supposed* to be used. If you start evaluating the potential ways an object can be misused to intentionally inflict injury upon others, then there really isn't much in the world that will be left. Ultimately, the most dangerous weapon in the world is the human mind, because in a pinch, I can use an Ethernet cable, a chair, a belt, a pencil, a ruler, a magazine, or pretty much anything around me as a weapon. Some (guns, knives, nuclear bombs) are more efficient than others (pencil, ruler, magazine), but the potential for destruction is pretty much only limited by your imagination and creativity.
[:rolleyes:]
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but seriously...there may, in fact, be a lot of things that religion has managed to screw up, but I think this is a bit of a stretch. Can you really find some place in Genesis where it says, "Thou shalt be overprotective and coddling of your children, lest they grow up to be braver than thine own self"? 'Cause I seemed to have missed that commandment in my reading.
My absolute, all-time, favorite science class was eighth grade science. We would have a short (ten minute) lecture at the beginning of class, then open our lab books and actually *do* the experiments. We mixed zinc and hydrochloric acid, then collected the gas that resulted in a test tube, and performed tests (like sticking a match in the test tube) to determine what properties the gas had (it was hydrogen, so you can see why the match test sticks in my mind). We poured a couple of drops of turpentine in the lid of a baby food jar, set it on fire, then collected the carbon that was given off. It was such a cool class, because we actually *did* stuff. I was utterly disappointed when I moved to a new school half-way through the semester, and the science class at the new school was your typical "read the book, listen to the lecture, watch the movie, try to stay awake" drivel.
Would you rather watch a movie about sex, or actually have sex?
Sometimes, nothing compares with the actual...errmmm..."hands-on"...experience.
Actually, after reviewing it a bit, I think I may have been wrong when I posted earlier.
A parabola will concentrate rays that arrive *nearly parallel and normal to the directrix* on the focus. Alternatively, any light/heat/sound/whatever source that is shining from the focus will be reflected off the parabola into nearly parallel (and normal to the directrix) rays. However, rays coming in at extreme angles will *not* be concentrated at the focus. Consequently, I think that as the sun moves above the hotel, the hot spot would move as well. My apologies to vlm; he was right.
I think you are right, too...it would be quite interesting to see how the suns rays are focused on different areas of the pool and courtyard. Not to mention, I'd be rather unhappy if the hotel knew that this was happening, but never bothered to alert me to the fact and I was burned as a result.
Ummm...I see where you are coming from, but I don't think your analogy is quite accurate. Moving the sun with respect to the parabola is equivalent to moving the parabola with respect to the sun if you are talking about whether or not you will still have a focal point regardless of where your radiant source is. Moving the sun with respect to the parabola is NOT equivalent to moving the parabola with respect to the sun when you are talking about where the afore-mentioned focal point will be located in reference to the parabola.
Look, I'm every bit as paranoid of the government as any other tin-foil hat /.'er. Just look at my comment history if you want proof of that. However, even I understand that governments have to have the ability to track down and punish criminals, because the alternative is even worse. IMHO, the Founding Fathers did a pretty good job of setting up a system that recognizes the cold, hard facts of living in the real world (searches, seizures, warrants, etc.) while protecting the populace from abuse (judicial oversight, separation of powers). Unfortunately, they didn't set term limits, and "We the People" have gotten complacent and lazy in the last 200 years. I fear we are about to get a rude awakening...
Let's take your "whole picture" one step farther, then. Is surveillance (i.e., tailing you, watching you from a stake-out) okay? What happens if a cop just happens to be there when you commit a crime?
/.'er in the U.K. (IIRC) pointed out the other day, in other parts of the world, only the S.W.A.T./C.E.R.T./whatever-it-was-he-called-them units are armed. In either case, there is a branch of LEOs that is equipped and authorized to use deadly force. Do you propose to disarm the police forces? Okay, what about the military? Or are you arguing that wiretaps are evil, but deadly force is okay?
Let's go another direction. You say wiretapping is unethical. Is it unethical to kill someone? Then, what about having armed police officers? In the U.S., your average cop is armed. As another
"The end justifies the means" is an argument for doing something unethical for the "Greater Good." Your argument presupposes that wiretaps are unethical. I disagree. Rather, I think it is a compromise that recognizes the fact that there are grey areas. That compromise is necessary because the alternative is anarchy. And if you think that's a viable option ("heh, heh...no one tellin' *me* what to do!"), you might want to look at what's been happening in places like Uganda for the last thirty years.
That was kind of the point behind all of the hue and cry here on /. and elsewhere about the government's drive to have backdoors installed in everything. First, I don't trust either of the last two administrations to have the ability to listen in on any conversation -- data or voice -- any time they wish without having to get the warrants authorizing the wiretaps. Second, even if I did trust either of these administrations (which I don't, just to be clear), there is absolutely NO fricken way to guarantee that others WON'T abuse those backdoors.
It's almost funny (in a tragic kind of way) that it took an abusive regime overseas to prove the point (and much sooner than I expected, I admit).
Ummm... no. The biggest reason we fight wiretaps is because they are wrong.
I, sir, see your "ummm...no" and raise you another "ummm...no".
Wiretaps, used with proper judicial oversight, for legitimate law-enforcement purposes, are not wrong. If a wiretap provides the proof that a violent criminal actually committed the crime for which they are being charged, then that is a good thing. The problem exists when a government -- any government -- uses wiretaps for illegitimate purposes. For example, to spy on the population in general (for example, the NSA wiretapping), to maintain a party in power against the populace's wishes (Iran), or without receiving the proper warrants to listen in on private conversations (NSL's).
While I think O.P. might be going a bit far to say, "It's not that we don't trust our government..." because I don't trust any government with unchecked power. However, you come off sounding like either a complete wacko or a naive 12-year old when you make a blanket statement like that. There is precious little in the world that's *THAT* black and white.
Write your congressman, let them know how you feel, and vote!
Why bother? He's already listened to my phone calls and read my e-mails...
Does that make it any less true? Franklin's point essentially was that if you aren't willing to participate in securing your freedoms, you don't deserve them. I fail to see how your explanation of the context makes that point any less true when you are talking about preserving the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution from your own government.
"Slippery slope?" Wake up, bro...we've already fallen off the end of the slide, and now we're plummeting towards the pool. Did I mention there are piranhas in the water?
The difference between guns and encryption is that a modern economy can function without guns...
Really? Are you certain about that? Ever see the guys carrying cash to refill an ATM machine? What do they have strapped to their hips? How about those friendly people driving those cars with the cool, flashing lights on top? What are they carrying on their belts? I'll give you a hint: those aren't 2048-bit RSA keys, they're guns, because without guns to enforce the laws that say "Thou shalt not steal," every 2-bit thief in the country would be a lot richer, and what would your modern economy look like then?
Fix the existing laws to provide adequate protections and judicial oversight ("Due Process"), and we'll talk. It can even be retroactive oversight, so long as it's there.
Until then, as far as I'm concerned, this is just another attempt by the suits in office to scare the sheeple into "behaving"...so they can continue to fleece America, because without a judicial watchdog, you have no way to prove otherwise. And if that doesn't scare you, then my friend, you haven't studied history long enough.
A random group of people could govern better and I would trust them more.
That's absolutely brilliant. Maybe its time we select our elected officials the same way we select jurors. I seriously doubt they could do any worse than the clowns we keep voting into office.
I thought that was our exit strategy for the Iraq war?
I kid, I kid!
Ummm...Paul was a Roman citizen and is frequently credited with writing most of the New Testament. Got any other prejudices you'd like to have disproved?
Many of the books that did not make it into the officially accepted cannon are easily available today, if you look for them: for example, the Apocrypha (which I think might be accepted by the Catholic Church -- but not being Catholic, I'm not certain of that) or the Book of Phillip.
At a simple level, there isn't really much difference between an airplane and a helicopter:
Airplane: relative wind over a curved airfoil (the wing) generates lift, and the airplane lifts into the air.
Helicopter: relative wind over a curved airfoil (the rotor blade) generates lift, and the helicopter lifts into the air.
There are several differences in capability based upon the method in which the relative wind is generated, and there are several differences in control problems that must be overcome in either case, but the aerodynamics governing aircraft flight and helicopter flight really aren't that different; it's still a matter of, "if lift > weight, you fly."
IIRC, I believe it was not just the extreme heat, but the pressure and extremely corrosive atmosphere that make Venus so incredibly inhospitable. In other words, just because the sensors can stand the heat of a volcano does not necessarily mean they can withstand the atmospheric pressure and corrosive atmosphere of Venus.