OpenBSD needs an annual donation drive the way that Wikipedia has one.
OpenBSD needs to open up it's OS distribution so that people can download and bit torrent OpenBSD ISO disks. OpenBSD needs to be a little easier to install. By taking these steps more people will find out about the project and use it and it will be easier for them to install.
For example, I know someone who switched from OpenBSD to FreeBSD simple due to the ease of installing FreeBSD.
Theo, open up OpenBSD distribution and get with it, have a donation drive: 100k per year sounds like a good goal. But if the software is hard to get then people simply won't use it.
Switching the license of OpenBSD would compromise the integrity of the team and the quality of the software as well as the most important aspect, freedom.
Switching would also be in violation of the rights of those who contributed code under the assumption of BSD; switching thus isn't legally viable.
The GPL isn't free software - it's communal software as in communistic communes or hippie communes.
The BSD style license enables true freedom for authors and users alike. Freedom to fork. Freedom to contribute. Freedome to use.
The GPL is so complicated how many of you have actually taken the time to read it? It bases is communistic society on rules that restrict your freedom by putting limits on what you can and can't do with it. For example, you are not free to develop with it and sell your modified versions without contributing your source code back to the commune. That's not freedom. That's communism.
A peer to peer mesh network based upon wireless unrestricted ultra wide band (UWB) technologies (such as unresticted http://time-domain.com/ has huge potential. High bandwidth rates over vast distances (20km+) between nodes with excellent obstacle penetration (due to the UWB). Since these devices are essentially digital pulse technology over a wide frequency band without the use of a power applifier in the transmitter they use very little power, about 1/1000 the power of a cell phone; yes, 1/1000.
The key is that it needs to be unrestricted; unfortunately the technology has been clamped down by the military in the USA (through the FCC) due to it's awesome capabilities for combat and other military applications. As a result most UWB devices for civilian use have extremely limited range. Also the detailed technical papers that were up on the Time Domain (Pulson) web site that explained the technology were removed (anybody have copies?); now the web site is little more than a lame product site.
Some of the military applications include: radar, secure and long range communications (many times greater than the best WiFi), accurate tracking (to the centimeter at 20km), imaging through walls. Another aspect that the military likes are the stealth capabilities of UWB which is very difficult to detect (with current technologies) since it appears as low power background noise (a.k.a. static); you have to know the transmission encrpytion codes to know how to decode which frequencies are the real ones at any moment. This also makes it highly secure. With these characteristics is no wonder that those in power don't want those not in power getting a hold of the full capabilities of this exotic technology.
The beauty of this technology is that it's perfect for creating self forming mesh peer to peer networks. It was the range, obstacle penetration, low power usage, and bandwidth needed. It's also all digital from the start. The low power enables the use of units placed in remote strategic locations with solar pannels to provide bridges and hubs into remote communities or in countries in the process of building an internet and voice based communicaitons infrastructure across wide swaths of land.
Imagine having a cell phone network where you didn't have to pay provider! Of course there could still be providers but an open commons would be best. Each cell phone in the network extends the range and capacity o the network (unless all the units converge at the same location).
Now maybe there are merits to having paid networks, after all we are in a capaitalist society. This can be built in and the costs computed and shared by the supplier routing paths with the supplier nodes bidding in real time for your communications. This can ride atop the existing protocols that compute the "cost" of network traffic. Of course anyone is free to provide true "network peering" arrangements. So there would be the need for open source communications licenses.
The major problem is that this needs to be approved by governments in various countries around the world.
The all the development going into WiFi maybe we'll get something similar and then make the jump to UWB once the hardware and software is ready for advanced mesh networks such as described above. The Dlink MiMo router is a step in the right direction at least in terms of range with its extra power; however it can only reach long distances with a directional antenna - UWB is generally omni directional. Imagine the range with a directional antenna.
Lobby your technology companies, your elected representatives, and your departments of your government that control communications and technologies in your country to allow for the best possible civilian capabiliites. DO NOT do this if you think you'll end up in jail or be put under survailance by your big brother style government - it's not worth the risk to your life as the next generation of WiFi units are likely to have the mesh portion put into them anyhow.
The 10's of thousands of nuclear bombs can be used to travel to the asteroids, the large gas giants and their moons to extract hydrocarbons, hydrogen, methane,... and transport it back to Mothership Earth.
Another would be using them to divert the orbits of asteroids too bring them into Earth or Luna Orbit for Energy and Raw Materials extraction. They might come in handy to protect the Earth from wayward asteroids too in some cases.
There's no effective way to collect the energy from a nuclear detonation and use it slowly.
Not yet... since when did that stop humans? The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
Kinda like trying to boil a pot of water with a stick of dynamite.
We could do that too. THe dynamite would be useful for building the GeoThermal energy extraction units.
Better to crack open the warheads and use the plutonium in a regular old fission reactor.
Yes, a good idea, but then we need them for our spaceships and the nuke bomb energy extraction power plants. We'll build them underground in huge caverns evacuated by, of course, very large nukes (h-bomb variety). We then line them with energy collecting units and grab and store all the photons (of every frequency) for later use. Large capacitors will be needed of course.
We can also use them to speed the Earth's rotation back up.
Let's use Nukes, as in reactors, to extract the Oil from the Tar Sands rather than Natural Gas. Oh, and while we are at it let's continue the Global Warming and heat up the Earth so that winters in the north require less heat to stay warm thus saving energy. About five to twenty degrees should do it.
Nuclear reactors are the way to go! The Canadian Tar Sands need to build up the Nukes to power the extraction of the remaining Oil Sands; this will save all the Natural Gas that they are burning now. We need that Natural Gas to heat the homes in the North and to warm the planet with the green house gases so that we don't have as cold winters up north.
Nukes are clean environmentally friendly energy and with new reactor designs can use up to 95+% of the energy content of the fuel.
Let's get fuel from Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and their moons. There's plenty of fuel there.
Hydrogen is awesome. Let's use Hydro, Nuclear, Wind and Solar to power the conversion of abundant water into pure hydrogen.
Let's save our fossil fuels. When we run out lets use the garbage dumps which have plenty of fuel potential in the methane and plastics embedded and not rotting quickly.
Let's mandate the replacement of all lights with LEDs as they are more energy efficient. Everyone needs to upgrade their computers and monitors to the latest energy efficient models.
Oh ya, how about GeoThermal energy. Just a few miles beneath the surface of the Earth is hot hot hot... let's make us of that and slow the planet's orbit down by letting it cool faster.
Let's take advantage of green house gases and warm up the planet so that we don't need to burn as much fuel in the winter.
Let's move to the tropics by encouraging mass migrations. Canadians move to Mexico, Americans move to Costa Rica and Panama while those in Quebec can move to the Caribean French Islands.
Let's Nuke em by building thousands of the new kinds of reactors. Let's grab all the enriched uranium fuel deposits that can be used for weapons and burn it to protect future generations and enable the extraction of energy now and in the coming future.
Let's continue to develop fusion technologies.
Let's put solar cells into the Lagrange point between the Sun and Earth and beam the energy to the Earth via microwaves.
Let's have all the humans on the planet get on bicycles and generate power or wind hand held energy cranks.
Bring it on. Technology to solve are problems.
Let's stop killing people. State sponsored mass killing won't solve the energy problems since wars consume a lot of energy and production capacity which also takes energy.
Let's Nuke Em by extracting energy from the 10's of thousands of nukes. The energy from the control detonations of the bombs will enable massive collection of energy.
Above all let's not freak out from those that predict the end of the world with their Quatrain's of doom and gloom. Embrace the Global Warming and accelerate it. It's the warmest it's ever been for 1200 years, bring it on! Heat is better than cold. Balance is for sissies. Let's make it happen.
Oh, ya all those other energy sources that I missed; let's do them too.
Smalltalk is highly legiable. Any new language style you learn is obviously unfamiliar at first seems unusual. Smalltalk's syntax is simplier than most langugages (C, Java,...) and is easy to learn. (See the example in the other responses to the above (parent) message).
Smalltalk.org has free online books and links available for learning Smalltalk, including tutorials for those familar with languages such as C, C++, Java... See http://smalltalk.org/smalltalk/learning.html.
If you look at the forum history you will see that you are using personal attacks. All I did was point out that fact. Pointing out that you use personal attacks is not a personal attack since I'm repectfull, have not called you names, and have asked that you stop such comments in the discussion. Your counter that these comments are themselves personal attacks against you is silly since it's clear that you are the one making the insults and attacks.
I hope that you will reconsider your usage of the illegimate argument devices and stop using them. Then maybe we can continue a civil discussion.
I said there is not a need for extraordinary evidence, because that kind of evidence is only required to justify "conclusively proven" claims.
Yes, it's obvious that you said there is no need, however that's nonsense. The Dark Matter hypothesis makes claims that require extraordinary evidence beyond the "strong evidence" obtained so far.
Obviously this is a point where we disagree.
In your other points you are simply repeating yourself or stating obvious facts about science and the Dark Matter hypothesis. Oh, ya and you continue with your insulting ways. You also seem to enjoy twisting statements to extreme points of view that do not actually reply to what I said, in essense taking the points out of context.
You also seem to be shifting your point of view on the "strength" of the Dark Matter hypothesis stronger and stronger.
My posts have been appropriate responses to what you've posted. However, you keep missing the points in the posts and are constantly using insults, belittling statements, ad hominem attacks (contrary to your statements that you've not used them), personal attackes, etc... against me and the scientists mentioned. By any assessemnt you would be well servered to alter your approach.
"No, it's an insult.
Embedded within an argument or not an insult is a form of personal attack. It simply indicates the low quality of your arguments.
I laid out the extensive scientific support for the theory -- and, as I offered earlier, I can point you towards review articles with much more evidence.
As you yourself stated the evidence isn't conclusive.
Wow, that's a convincing argument.
Obviously you missed the point about the comparisons with Magician's Magic being real and Dark Matter being a hypothosis.
The scientific basis for calling the Dark Matter mythical magic is that it's not yet been proven conclusively. It's still a theory in the works, a hypothosis without substantial evidence of the extraordinary kind to support the extraordinary claims made by it's Dark Matter hypothesis.
You've won nothing. You've missed the point completely. It seems that since you don't get what I was saying you revert to calling me names rather than asking pertinent questions. Up the quality of your discussion, stop insluting people. Reread what I've written and see if there are other meanings that you missed on prior readings. You might learn something.
Save some face and admit you've been making a fool out of yourself. You're not going to hide your ignorance by attacking me.
I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out where you are attacking me. Am I a fool for pointing out that Dark Matter is still simply a hypothesis with some evidence and in that regard it has aspects of similarity with Magicians Magic and Mythical Magic? Am I a fool for pointing out that you are using personal attacks in your arguments? Am I a fool for letting you know that it's possible that there could be alternative explainationsof reality that don't resort to the use of what is essentially Magical Dark Matter (remember it's not yet been proven that Dark Matter exists)?
Could it be that you missed the points that I've been making? Yes it could be.
you made a dumb assertion and got called on it
There you go again with the personal attacks and name calling. If I was to stoop to your level I'd have to say something like "wash your mouth out with some dark matter". However, I won't stop to your low level.
I actually have proven my argument: you were totally ignorant of the rebuttals of Cooperstock and Tieu's paper even while citing their paper as dispensing with dark matter.
You've not proven your argument. You are assuming that the rebuttal papers are conclusive in dispensing with the Copperstock and Tieu line of reasoning. That's a big leap. They have opened a new door, a new possibility that others have rejected. Maybe it will lead nowhere but it's an open possibility that will need to be fully explored and a few rebuttal papers are NOT necessarily the end of it.
"Yeah, I am so terribly concerned with pleasing you, Mr. Anonymous CuttingEdge."
I already addressed the advantages of Slashdot accounts that do provide some identity presense which you seem to reject out of hand Anonymous Coward.
You assume that a comparison of Dark Matter with Magic is bad.
The Amzaing Randi can present conclusive proof that Magic is real, which is a lot more than you can say about Dark Matter with it's "strong evidence".
Your linked posting, which you can't prove is yours since you've posted it anonymously, wasn't relevent to my posting since the linked posting didn't provide conclusive and extraordinary proof.
I didn't attack your request for "extraordinary evidence". In fact, I gave you quite a bit of evidence.
But you didn't present extraordinary evidence. As Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Dark Matter doesn't need to have been "proven" to require the production of extraordinary evidence. The fact that the Dark Matter hypothesis makes extraordinary claims is enough to trigger the requirement for extraordinary claims.
"The existence of dark matter will be resolved by a new theory driven by new experimental evidence. It won't be because physicists have been misapplying existing theories all along due to math errors.
Maybe, maybe not. You don't know that for sure unless you can travel into the future or see into a crystal ball. In fact your statement is a belief.
"If it's a different question, than why did you cite C&T in support of your claim regarding physicists making math errors?
Obviously you need to re-read the paragraph untill you understand what it's saying. Let me be very clear: You are assuming that the rebuttal papers are conclusive in dispensing with the Copperstock and Tieu line of reasoning. That's a big leap. They have opened a new door, a new possibility that others have rejected. Maybe it will lead nowhere but it's an open possibility that will need to be fully explored and a few rebuttal papers are NOT necessarily the end of it.
You "believe" that they made errors. Reading the papers it looks that way. However it's not the end of that line of reasoning you'll have to admit.
For a time people thought that Einstein made a big mistake with his Comological Constant, he also beleived that it seems. Now it could be that he was on to a line of reasoning that while not entirely correct is reaping large rewards. Who are you to judge Cooperstock and Tieu and dispense with their work with a lot of sound, fury and insults? Aspects of thieir work could prove valuable.
Belittling them is an ad hominem attack. Belittling them lowers the quality of your work. It's a favorite method of arguing of yours. It's likely that you use it in your life with many of the people around you. Satisfying is it?
My response to ad hominem attacks is too point them out to the person who makes them rather than replying in kind. Please raise the quality of your discussion.
By stating that Cooperstock and Tieu are just "two guys" you do them a diser
"an idiot of the highest order" isn't an ad homenim attack eh?
While you might seem to know something about physics you also evidently have a need to personally attack those who argue and challenge your statements by reverting to the time honored practice of name calling.
The Magic of The Amazing Randi has more reality to it than Dark Matter.
I suppose that you believe in God as well as Dark Matter?
Ah, ya, that's obvious, the link and going for the details. Your post adds nothing. I was publically disagreeing with assement that the article was well written.
Your assertion that I'm ignorant about Dark Matter is not more than an irrelevant opinion and is an ad hominem attack; as is much of your above posting. I request that you take up a writing style that avoids ad hominem person attacks starting with your very next posting.
Not having a Slashdot account makes it difficult to know if you are the same poster from post to post. At least a Slashdot account let's others know that it's likely the same person posting or responding to a post.
The point about Dark Matter being magic isn't intended to "deride" the hypothesis of dark matter; it is what it is. The hypothesis will stand or fall as people examine it over time and find the beyond doubt conclusive and extraordinary evidence for it or not. Dark Matter makes extraordinary claims and while there is some evidence for it so far there isn't extraordinary evidence for it. Some of the claims just seem magical, unreal and not related to everyday experience; while that characteristic is common in much of physics it's especially true of the Dark Matter hypothesis (and others such as the String Hypothesis).
I didn't ignore your link to what you assert is your list of Dark Matter evidence. It simply wasn't relevant to my posting. The linked posting was well written I might add just so you know that I read and considered it.
By your own statement you assert that "Nobody claims that [Dark Matter] has been 'conclusively' proven"; so how can you attack my request for "extraordinary evidence"? It's not only a reasonable request, it's at the core of the Scientific Method that those who make (or support) the extraordinary claims find the extraordinary evidence and present it.
I make the same requests of those who support or proport the notion that God or the FSM exists. Where is the proof? Where is the reality based extraordinary evidence?
As to the paper "General Relativity Resolves Galactic Rotation Without Exotic Dark Matter", by Cooperstock and Tieu, which suggests that physicists have got their math wrong it's very probably the case; whether or not Cooperstock and Tieu are right with their math is a different question. If you look at the various hypothesis being proposed, Dark Matter, MOND, Strings, M-Branes, etc... they for the most part exist in the world of mathematics (the questions are how and if they correlate with Reality). So it's not a stretch or an insult to question the accuracy of the mathematics involved. In fact that's the basis of the papers that you presented attacking the "Cooperstock and Tieu" papers - that they got their math wrong. So it's common for physicists to assert that the others have got their math wrong. Since we've yet to hear further from Cooperstock and Tieu bowing to these newer papers assertions about their work it's not a dead subject yet - they (or someone else) may still come though with additional adjustments to their hypothesis taking into account any valid critisms. That's the nature of the process of progress in science.
Your statement I mean really, where do you get off telling the entire dark matter community that they "did the math wrong" and were trivially disproved by two guys with a rejected paper that was debunked six times over? is an ad hominem attack against Copperstock and Tieu since you assert that they are simply "two guys" when compared to the "dark matter community". Let's see now, Copperstock is a professor with the University of Victoria's Department of Physics and Astronomy which makes him a little bit more than a run of the mill guy. It also makes him someone who is qualified (by his peers) to assert that the entire dark matter community did their math wrong; and that's exactly what he did in his paper. That is also exactly what the rebuttal papers said of him. That's the process of science. By the way, in case you think that "two guys" can't trivially disprove the entire physics community there was this unknown guy with the name of Albert Einstein who worked at a patent office...
I am, having spent 4 years in gravity research and having taught university general relativity.
Then why hide behind "Anonymous Coward"?
Oooo, let's cover up your profound ignorance of the evidence for and against dark matter by calling it "magical". That neatly obviates the necessity for you to muster any scientific arguments against it.
I understand the arguments for Dark Matter and they don't make it sound any less Magical. Besides, it's incumbant upon those (i.e. you) who propose an "Extraordinary Theory" (such as Dark Matter) to provide the extraordinary evidence for it.
The Extraordinary Evidence standard is applicable to Theories of God (really Theologies of God) as well those of Science. Dark Matter may or may not be proven; while it might be falified by someone, as a proponent of it it's up to you to prove that Dark Matter correlates with Reality and to offer the extraordinary evidence of it's existance.
It's not relevant whether or not I like Dark Matter. The evidence just isn't conclusive. Where is the extraordinary evidence for it's existance? Where is a jar of the stuff (so to speak assuming it can be held in a jar in your hand)?
What is interesting about this discussion and the large number of new "theories" to explain the anomolies in galactic motions is that it's the cutting edge of human understanding.
Oh, by the way a writing style that borders on insults (e.g. your profound ignorance comment) and ad hominem methods isn't needed and just reflects upon your abilities to argue.
Ok Anonymous Coward, those papers appear to attempt to refute the Cooperstock and Tieu paper. I wonder how Cooperstock and Tieu have replied to these critisms?
Dark Matter, the magical substance, just seems contrived and, well, magical. The FSM seems to have more reality than Dark Matter... where is the proof?
A galaxy is modeled as a stationary axially symmetric pressure-free fluid in
general relativity. For the weak gravitational fields under consideration, the field
equations and the equations of motion ultimately lead to one linear and one non-
linear equation relating the angular velocity to the fluid density. It is shown that
the rotation curves for the Milky Way, NGC 3031, NGC 3198 and NGC 7331 are
consistent with the mass density distributions of the visible matter concentrated in
flattened disks. Thus the need for a massive halo of exotic dark matter is removed." http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/1 0/1052224&tid=160&tid=14 http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0507/050 7619.pdf
"... the intrinsically linear Newtonian-based approach used to this point [in the study of the motion of Galactic Bodies] has been inadequate for the description of the galactic dynamics and Einstein's general relativity should be brought into the analysis within the framework of established gravitational theory."
I guess that most Dark Matter proponents haven't yet read this important paper that debunks the need for Dark Matter. Ah, if you get the math wrong you need Dark Matter... if you don't you don't!
Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD needs an annual donation drive the way that Wikipedia has one.
OpenBSD needs to open up it's OS distribution so that people can download and bit torrent OpenBSD ISO disks. OpenBSD needs to be a little easier to install. By taking these steps more people will find out about the project and use it and it will be easier for them to install.
For example, I know someone who switched from OpenBSD to FreeBSD simple due to the ease of installing FreeBSD.
Theo, open up OpenBSD distribution and get with it, have a donation drive: 100k per year sounds like a good goal. But if the software is hard to get then people simply won't use it.
Switching the license of OpenBSD would compromise the integrity of the team and the quality of the software as well as the most important aspect, freedom.
Switching would also be in violation of the rights of those who contributed code under the assumption of BSD; switching thus isn't legally viable.
The GPL isn't free software - it's communal software as in communistic communes or hippie communes.
The BSD style license enables true freedom for authors and users alike. Freedom to fork. Freedom to contribute. Freedome to use.
The GPL is so complicated how many of you have actually taken the time to read it? It bases is communistic society on rules that restrict your freedom by putting limits on what you can and can't do with it. For example, you are not free to develop with it and sell your modified versions without contributing your source code back to the commune. That's not freedom. That's communism.
Be FREE, Be BSD (or equlivant).
A peer to peer mesh network based upon wireless unrestricted ultra wide band (UWB) technologies (such as unresticted http://time-domain.com/ has huge potential. High bandwidth rates over vast distances (20km+) between nodes with excellent obstacle penetration (due to the UWB). Since these devices are essentially digital pulse technology over a wide frequency band without the use of a power applifier in the transmitter they use very little power, about 1/1000 the power of a cell phone; yes, 1/1000.
The key is that it needs to be unrestricted; unfortunately the technology has been clamped down by the military in the USA (through the FCC) due to it's awesome capabilities for combat and other military applications. As a result most UWB devices for civilian use have extremely limited range. Also the detailed technical papers that were up on the Time Domain (Pulson) web site that explained the technology were removed (anybody have copies?); now the web site is little more than a lame product site.
Some of the military applications include: radar, secure and long range communications (many times greater than the best WiFi), accurate tracking (to the centimeter at 20km), imaging through walls. Another aspect that the military likes are the stealth capabilities of UWB which is very difficult to detect (with current technologies) since it appears as low power background noise (a.k.a. static); you have to know the transmission encrpytion codes to know how to decode which frequencies are the real ones at any moment. This also makes it highly secure. With these characteristics is no wonder that those in power don't want those not in power getting a hold of the full capabilities of this exotic technology.
The beauty of this technology is that it's perfect for creating self forming mesh peer to peer networks. It was the range, obstacle penetration, low power usage, and bandwidth needed. It's also all digital from the start. The low power enables the use of units placed in remote strategic locations with solar pannels to provide bridges and hubs into remote communities or in countries in the process of building an internet and voice based communicaitons infrastructure across wide swaths of land.
Imagine having a cell phone network where you didn't have to pay provider! Of course there could still be providers but an open commons would be best. Each cell phone in the network extends the range and capacity o the network (unless all the units converge at the same location).
Now maybe there are merits to having paid networks, after all we are in a capaitalist society. This can be built in and the costs computed and shared by the supplier routing paths with the supplier nodes bidding in real time for your communications. This can ride atop the existing protocols that compute the "cost" of network traffic. Of course anyone is free to provide true "network peering" arrangements. So there would be the need for open source communications licenses.
The major problem is that this needs to be approved by governments in various countries around the world.
The all the development going into WiFi maybe we'll get something similar and then make the jump to UWB once the hardware and software is ready for advanced mesh networks such as described above. The Dlink MiMo router is a step in the right direction at least in terms of range with its extra power; however it can only reach long distances with a directional antenna - UWB is generally omni directional. Imagine the range with a directional antenna.
Lobby your technology companies, your elected representatives, and your departments of your government that control communications and technologies in your country to allow for the best possible civilian capabiliites. DO NOT do this if you think you'll end up in jail or be put under survailance by your big brother style government - it's not worth the risk to your life as the next generation of WiFi units are likely to have the mesh portion put into them anyhow.
Ye of little vision and critism... nukes rule...
... and transport it back to Mothership Earth.
The 10's of thousands of nuclear bombs can be used to travel to the asteroids, the large gas giants and their moons to extract hydrocarbons, hydrogen, methane,
See info on Project Orion, nuclear bomb propelled spaceships. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion
That's just one peaceful application of nukes.
Another would be using them to divert the orbits of asteroids too bring them into Earth or Luna Orbit for Energy and Raw Materials extraction. They might come in handy to protect the Earth from wayward asteroids too in some cases. There's no effective way to collect the energy from a nuclear detonation and use it slowly.
Not yet... since when did that stop humans? The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
Kinda like trying to boil a pot of water with a stick of dynamite.
We could do that too. THe dynamite would be useful for building the GeoThermal energy extraction units.
Better to crack open the warheads and use the plutonium in a regular old fission reactor.
Yes, a good idea, but then we need them for our spaceships and the nuke bomb energy extraction power plants. We'll build them underground in huge caverns evacuated by, of course, very large nukes (h-bomb variety). We then line them with energy collecting units and grab and store all the photons (of every frequency) for later use. Large capacitors will be needed of course.
We can also use them to speed the Earth's rotation back up.
What are you doing today to invent the future?
Let's use Nukes, as in reactors, to extract the Oil from the Tar Sands rather than Natural Gas. Oh, and while we are at it let's continue the Global Warming and heat up the Earth so that winters in the north require less heat to stay warm thus saving energy. About five to twenty degrees should do it.
Nuclear reactors are the way to go! The Canadian Tar Sands need to build up the Nukes to power the extraction of the remaining Oil Sands; this will save all the Natural Gas that they are burning now. We need that Natural Gas to heat the homes in the North and to warm the planet with the green house gases so that we don't have as cold winters up north.
Nukes are clean environmentally friendly energy and with new reactor designs can use up to 95+% of the energy content of the fuel.
Let's get fuel from Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and their moons. There's plenty of fuel there.
Hydrogen is awesome. Let's use Hydro, Nuclear, Wind and Solar to power the conversion of abundant water into pure hydrogen.
Let's save our fossil fuels. When we run out lets use the garbage dumps which have plenty of fuel potential in the methane and plastics embedded and not rotting quickly.
Let's mandate the replacement of all lights with LEDs as they are more energy efficient. Everyone needs to upgrade their computers and monitors to the latest energy efficient models.
Oh ya, how about GeoThermal energy. Just a few miles beneath the surface of the Earth is hot hot hot... let's make us of that and slow the planet's orbit down by letting it cool faster.
Let's take advantage of green house gases and warm up the planet so that we don't need to burn as much fuel in the winter.
Let's move to the tropics by encouraging mass migrations. Canadians move to Mexico, Americans move to Costa Rica and Panama while those in Quebec can move to the Caribean French Islands.
Let's Nuke em by building thousands of the new kinds of reactors. Let's grab all the enriched uranium fuel deposits that can be used for weapons and burn it to protect future generations and enable the extraction of energy now and in the coming future.
Let's continue to develop fusion technologies.
Let's put solar cells into the Lagrange point between the Sun and Earth and beam the energy to the Earth via microwaves.
Let's have all the humans on the planet get on bicycles and generate power or wind hand held energy cranks.
Bring it on. Technology to solve are problems.
Let's stop killing people. State sponsored mass killing won't solve the energy problems since wars consume a lot of energy and production capacity which also takes energy.
Let's Nuke Em by extracting energy from the 10's of thousands of nukes. The energy from the control detonations of the bombs will enable massive collection of energy.
Above all let's not freak out from those that predict the end of the world with their Quatrain's of doom and gloom. Embrace the Global Warming and accelerate it. It's the warmest it's ever been for 1200 years, bring it on! Heat is better than cold. Balance is for sissies. Let's make it happen.
Oh, ya all those other energy sources that I missed; let's do them too.
Smalltalk is highly legiable. Any new language style you learn is obviously unfamiliar at first seems unusual. Smalltalk's syntax is simplier than most langugages (C, Java, ...) and is easy to learn. (See the example in the other responses to the above (parent) message).
Smalltalk.org has free online books and links available for learning Smalltalk, including tutorials for those familar with languages such as C, C++, Java... See http://smalltalk.org/smalltalk/learning.html.
If you look at the forum history you will see that you are using personal attacks. All I did was point out that fact. Pointing out that you use personal attacks is not a personal attack since I'm repectfull, have not called you names, and have asked that you stop such comments in the discussion. Your counter that these comments are themselves personal attacks against you is silly since it's clear that you are the one making the insults and attacks.
I hope that you will reconsider your usage of the illegimate argument devices and stop using them. Then maybe we can continue a civil discussion.
I said there is not a need for extraordinary evidence, because that kind of evidence is only required to justify "conclusively proven" claims.
Yes, it's obvious that you said there is no need, however that's nonsense. The Dark Matter hypothesis makes claims that require extraordinary evidence beyond the "strong evidence" obtained so far.
Obviously this is a point where we disagree.
In your other points you are simply repeating yourself or stating obvious facts about science and the Dark Matter hypothesis. Oh, ya and you continue with your insulting ways. You also seem to enjoy twisting statements to extreme points of view that do not actually reply to what I said, in essense taking the points out of context.
You also seem to be shifting your point of view on the "strength" of the Dark Matter hypothesis stronger and stronger.
My posts have been appropriate responses to what you've posted. However, you keep missing the points in the posts and are constantly using insults, belittling statements, ad hominem attacks (contrary to your statements that you've not used them), personal attackes, etc... against me and the scientists mentioned. By any assessemnt you would be well servered to alter your approach.
"No, it's an insult.
Embedded within an argument or not an insult is a form of personal attack. It simply indicates the low quality of your arguments.
I laid out the extensive scientific support for the theory -- and, as I offered earlier, I can point you towards review articles with much more evidence.
As you yourself stated the evidence isn't conclusive.
Wow, that's a convincing argument.
Obviously you missed the point about the comparisons with Magician's Magic being real and Dark Matter being a hypothosis.
The scientific basis for calling the Dark Matter mythical magic is that it's not yet been proven conclusively. It's still a theory in the works, a hypothosis without substantial evidence of the extraordinary kind to support the extraordinary claims made by it's Dark Matter hypothesis.
You've won nothing. You've missed the point completely. It seems that since you don't get what I was saying you revert to calling me names rather than asking pertinent questions. Up the quality of your discussion, stop insluting people. Reread what I've written and see if there are other meanings that you missed on prior readings. You might learn something.
Save some face and admit you've been making a fool out of yourself. You're not going to hide your ignorance by attacking me.
I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out where you are attacking me. Am I a fool for pointing out that Dark Matter is still simply a hypothesis with some evidence and in that regard it has aspects of similarity with Magicians Magic and Mythical Magic? Am I a fool for pointing out that you are using personal attacks in your arguments? Am I a fool for letting you know that it's possible that there could be alternative explainationsof reality that don't resort to the use of what is essentially Magical Dark Matter (remember it's not yet been proven that Dark Matter exists)?
Could it be that you missed the points that I've been making? Yes it could be.
you made a dumb assertion and got called on it
There you go again with the personal attacks and name calling. If I was to stoop to your level I'd have to say something like "wash your mouth out with some dark matter". However, I won't stop to your low level.
I actually have proven my argument: you were totally ignorant of the rebuttals of Cooperstock and Tieu's paper even while citing their paper as dispensing with dark matter.
You've not proven your argument. You are assuming that the rebuttal papers are conclusive in dispensing with the Copperstock and Tieu line of reasoning. That's a big leap. They have opened a new door, a new possibility that others have rejected. Maybe it will lead nowhere but it's an open possibility that will need to be fully explored and a few rebuttal papers are NOT necessarily the end of it.
"Yeah, I am so terribly concerned with pleasing you, Mr. Anonymous CuttingEdge."
I already addressed the advantages of Slashdot accounts that do provide some identity presense which you seem to reject out of hand Anonymous Coward.
You assume that a comparison of Dark Matter with Magic is bad.
The Amzaing Randi can present conclusive proof that Magic is real, which is a lot more than you can say about Dark Matter with it's "strong evidence".
Your linked posting, which you can't prove is yours since you've posted it anonymously, wasn't relevent to my posting since the linked posting didn't provide conclusive and extraordinary proof.
I didn't attack your request for "extraordinary evidence". In fact, I gave you quite a bit of evidence.
But you didn't present extraordinary evidence. As Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Dark Matter doesn't need to have been "proven" to require the production of extraordinary evidence. The fact that the Dark Matter hypothesis makes extraordinary claims is enough to trigger the requirement for extraordinary claims.
"The existence of dark matter will be resolved by a new theory driven by new experimental evidence. It won't be because physicists have been misapplying existing theories all along due to math errors.
Maybe, maybe not. You don't know that for sure unless you can travel into the future or see into a crystal ball. In fact your statement is a belief.
"If it's a different question, than why did you cite C&T in support of your claim regarding physicists making math errors?
Obviously you need to re-read the paragraph untill you understand what it's saying. Let me be very clear: You are assuming that the rebuttal papers are conclusive in dispensing with the Copperstock and Tieu line of reasoning. That's a big leap. They have opened a new door, a new possibility that others have rejected. Maybe it will lead nowhere but it's an open possibility that will need to be fully explored and a few rebuttal papers are NOT necessarily the end of it.
You "believe" that they made errors. Reading the papers it looks that way. However it's not the end of that line of reasoning you'll have to admit.
For a time people thought that Einstein made a big mistake with his Comological Constant, he also beleived that it seems. Now it could be that he was on to a line of reasoning that while not entirely correct is reaping large rewards. Who are you to judge Cooperstock and Tieu and dispense with their work with a lot of sound, fury and insults? Aspects of thieir work could prove valuable.
Belittling them is an ad hominem attack. Belittling them lowers the quality of your work. It's a favorite method of arguing of yours. It's likely that you use it in your life with many of the people around you. Satisfying is it?
My response to ad hominem attacks is too point them out to the person who makes them rather than replying in kind. Please raise the quality of your discussion.
By stating that Cooperstock and Tieu are just "two guys" you do them a diser
"an idiot of the highest order" isn't an ad homenim attack eh?
While you might seem to know something about physics you also evidently have a need to personally attack those who argue and challenge your statements by reverting to the time honored practice of name calling.
The Magic of The Amazing Randi has more reality to it than Dark Matter.
I suppose that you believe in God as well as Dark Matter?
Ah, ya, that's obvious, the link and going for the details. Your post adds nothing. I was publically disagreeing with assement that the article was well written.
Your assertion that I'm ignorant about Dark Matter is not more than an irrelevant opinion and is an ad hominem attack; as is much of your above posting. I request that you take up a writing style that avoids ad hominem person attacks starting with your very next posting.
Not having a Slashdot account makes it difficult to know if you are the same poster from post to post. At least a Slashdot account let's others know that it's likely the same person posting or responding to a post.
The point about Dark Matter being magic isn't intended to "deride" the hypothesis of dark matter; it is what it is. The hypothesis will stand or fall as people examine it over time and find the beyond doubt conclusive and extraordinary evidence for it or not. Dark Matter makes extraordinary claims and while there is some evidence for it so far there isn't extraordinary evidence for it. Some of the claims just seem magical, unreal and not related to everyday experience; while that characteristic is common in much of physics it's especially true of the Dark Matter hypothesis (and others such as the String Hypothesis).
I didn't ignore your link to what you assert is your list of Dark Matter evidence. It simply wasn't relevant to my posting. The linked posting was well written I might add just so you know that I read and considered it.
By your own statement you assert that "Nobody claims that [Dark Matter] has been 'conclusively' proven"; so how can you attack my request for "extraordinary evidence"? It's not only a reasonable request, it's at the core of the Scientific Method that those who make (or support) the extraordinary claims find the extraordinary evidence and present it.
I make the same requests of those who support or proport the notion that God or the FSM exists. Where is the proof? Where is the reality based extraordinary evidence?
As to the paper "General Relativity Resolves Galactic Rotation Without Exotic Dark Matter", by Cooperstock and Tieu, which suggests that physicists have got their math wrong it's very probably the case; whether or not Cooperstock and Tieu are right with their math is a different question. If you look at the various hypothesis being proposed, Dark Matter, MOND, Strings, M-Branes, etc... they for the most part exist in the world of mathematics (the questions are how and if they correlate with Reality). So it's not a stretch or an insult to question the accuracy of the mathematics involved. In fact that's the basis of the papers that you presented attacking the "Cooperstock and Tieu" papers - that they got their math wrong. So it's common for physicists to assert that the others have got their math wrong. Since we've yet to hear further from Cooperstock and Tieu bowing to these newer papers assertions about their work it's not a dead subject yet - they (or someone else) may still come though with additional adjustments to their hypothesis taking into account any valid critisms. That's the nature of the process of progress in science.
Your statement I mean really, where do you get off telling the entire dark matter community that they "did the math wrong" and were trivially disproved by two guys with a rejected paper that was debunked six times over? is an ad hominem attack against Copperstock and Tieu since you assert that they are simply "two guys" when compared to the "dark matter community". Let's see now, Copperstock is a professor with the University of Victoria's Department of Physics and Astronomy which makes him a little bit more than a run of the mill guy. It also makes him someone who is qualified (by his peers) to assert that the entire dark matter community did their math wrong; and that's exactly what he did in his paper. That is also exactly what the rebuttal papers said of him. That's the process of science. By the way, in case you think that "two guys" can't trivially disprove the entire physics community there was this unknown guy with the name of Albert Einstein who worked at a patent office...
I am, having spent 4 years in gravity research and having taught university general relativity.
Then why hide behind "Anonymous Coward"?
Oooo, let's cover up your profound ignorance of the evidence for and against dark matter by calling it "magical". That neatly obviates the necessity for you to muster any scientific arguments against it.
I understand the arguments for Dark Matter and they don't make it sound any less Magical. Besides, it's incumbant upon those (i.e. you) who propose an "Extraordinary Theory" (such as Dark Matter) to provide the extraordinary evidence for it.
The Extraordinary Evidence standard is applicable to Theories of God (really Theologies of God) as well those of Science. Dark Matter may or may not be proven; while it might be falified by someone, as a proponent of it it's up to you to prove that Dark Matter correlates with Reality and to offer the extraordinary evidence of it's existance.
It's not relevant whether or not I like Dark Matter. The evidence just isn't conclusive. Where is the extraordinary evidence for it's existance? Where is a jar of the stuff (so to speak assuming it can be held in a jar in your hand)?
What is interesting about this discussion and the large number of new "theories" to explain the anomolies in galactic motions is that it's the cutting edge of human understanding. Oh, by the way a writing style that borders on insults (e.g. your profound ignorance comment) and ad hominem methods isn't needed and just reflects upon your abilities to argue.
Ok Anonymous Coward, those papers appear to attempt to refute the Cooperstock and Tieu paper. I wonder how Cooperstock and Tieu have replied to these critisms?
Dark Matter, the magical substance, just seems contrived and, well, magical. The FSM seems to have more reality than Dark Matter... where is the proof?
The article is NOT well written. It doesn't explain anything other than in vague terms. A cat chewing on a lemon would make more sense.
A galaxy is modeled as a stationary axially symmetric pressure-free fluid in general relativity. For the weak gravitational fields under consideration, the field equations and the equations of motion ultimately lead to one linear and one non- linear equation relating the angular velocity to the fluid density. It is shown that the rotation curves for the Milky Way, NGC 3031, NGC 3198 and NGC 7331 are consistent with the mass density distributions of the visible matter concentrated in flattened disks. Thus the need for a massive halo of exotic dark matter is removed."1 0/1052224&tid=160&tid=14 0 7619.pdf
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0507/05
"... the intrinsically linear Newtonian-based approach used to this point [in the study of the motion of Galactic Bodies] has been inadequate for the description of the galactic dynamics and Einstein's general relativity should be brought into the analysis within the framework of established gravitational theory."
I guess that most Dark Matter proponents haven't yet read this important paper that debunks the need for Dark Matter. Ah, if you get the math wrong you need Dark Matter... if you don't you don't!
You missed one language that fits into all the categories.
There are a few languages groups:
Special: Sql, Fortran, ASM, Smalltalk
Brute force: C,C++,Smalltalk
Object: C++, Py, Java, Ruby, Lua, Smalltalk
Scripting: Perl, PHP, asp, Smalltalk
High level: Haskel, LISP, Smalltalk
Download a version of Smalltalk that fits your needs today from http://www.smalltalk.org/versions.