As is typical, you are stranded on a desert island: Which three books on the whole of technology would you bring?
Know Your Knots - Jonas Grumby
Coconuts, Bananas, and Pineapples, Oh My! - A Guide to Edible Plants of the Tropics - Mary Ann Summers
Bamboo: 1001 Uses and Counting - Dr. Roy Hinkley
Oh, and look, you're my foe, it seems. Got tired of an expert coming up to let you know you're wrong, still wrong, and will likely always be wrong?
That wasn't meant to be insulting or degrading (although, in retrospect I can see how it can be taken that way). I meant it to be humourous (See: https://xkcd.com/179/). I apologize if my comment rubbed you the wrong way. To be fair, though, to an untrained eye, it does look like well composed pseudo-scientific doublespeak, like the pro-Mars posts from K'Breel, speaker for the Council.
Why do so many claim that the second amendment is to protect the people from the state when the amendment clearly says that it is the state that the people are protecting?
I think they must have skipped the chapter in their basic handbook of optics called Babinet's principle. Because they just re-invented Babinet focusing.
By the way, an insightful thing to ponder here is, what happens to the light rays that were aiming for the center? (yes you can use a ray-optic basis set and still have interferrence). Well they were not in the beam! In a plane wave basis set, you would say, well all the plane waves with that K-vector were missing. Thus it's really simple to figure out how to create a dark spot. Just take an axiconically focused beam. Delete all parts of the axicon which focus in the dark region and replace them with any part of the axicon that focuses outside the dark region. Bam. that's it.
Did this myself a decade ago when I wanted arrays of dark spots in focused light. Why would I want that? I was trying to get the same effect as self fillamentation. but without non-linear effects in the media. That way I could create long arrays of ionized spots in the air, and use this to direct lighting beams.
Recently the military created a lightning weapon based on this.
But axicons and babinets prininciple this has been known for centuries.
ray-optic basis set
plane wave basis set
plane waves with that K-vector
axiconically focused beam
parts of the axicon
self fillamentation
long arrays of ionized spots in the air
You're just spewing well formed techno-babble, aren't you? That would have sounded right at home coming out of Wesley Crusher's mouth back in the day.
Choice one: BitCoins are a legitimate currency and are recognized as such by the U.S. government. What he's doing isn't illegal unless they are.
If they are charging him, then they are admitting that BitCons are a legitimate currency. Bad for him, good for the rest of us?
Choice two: Physical BitCoins are novelties sort of like the commemorative coins minted by Franklin Mint. What he's doing isn't illegal unless what Franklin Mint does is illegal.
The Franklin mint may have already gone through all the necessary legal loopholes, since it was a functional mint at one point.
The big risk of a diversion campaign like that is if the imaginary technology turns out to be real... then we've just inspired our enemies to perfect it, while we've wasted our time.
Like I said: "Common sense says no, but there's always a nagging little doubt in the back of the mind to drive the necessary paranoia."
Financial resources aren't the only factor. There are officers, spies and double agents, secure facilities that could be better used for other projects, communications bottlenecks.
Did you ever wonder why we never hear about Seal Teams 1-5? Why do we only ever hear about Seal Team 6's exploits?
Turns out it's exactly the sort of thing you're talking about: a ploy to make the Soviets think the Americans had more going on than they did by skipping straight to 6.
Why not attribute the exploits to all "six" teams, rather than having a conspicuous gap from 1 to 5?
What if the entire MKULTRA project was a scam meant to cause the USSR to waste resources to close this imaginary weapons gap? A few "top secret" documents leaked here; a few rumours there; Common sense says no, but there's always a nagging little doubt in the back of the mind to drive the necessary paranoia. It's perfect.
Further, your desktop computer and/or server isn't a box, stop calling it that.
Mine's a box. Granted, it is made of metal and plastic, rather than cardboard, but that doesn't matter. Boxes can be made of all sorts of materials. Why do you think it isn't a box?
i think what he was getting at was that claims that fall outside the natural order, necessarily require evidence that cannot be explained by natural mechanisms.
Ahh! So it's meant to mean we can't prove or disprove spiritual claims by looking at merely physical evidence?
Slashdot Mirror
Get Make: Electronics - Learning Through Discovery published by O'Reilly. Books from O'Reilly are DRM-free.
Judging by the cover, that looks like a really good book.
Back in my day, we had 300 baud modems, and we had to dial the # manually. Plus, no graphics.
... and we hated it. So we invented 14.4kbps modems.
As is typical, you are stranded on a desert island: Which three books on the whole of technology would you bring?
Know Your Knots - Jonas Grumby
Coconuts, Bananas, and Pineapples, Oh My! - A Guide to Edible Plants of the Tropics - Mary Ann Summers
Bamboo: 1001 Uses and Counting - Dr. Roy Hinkley
Is the actual quote not "Can any headline which ends in a quiestion mark be answered bye the word no?"
"When everyone is super, no one is." - Buddy Pine (a.k.a Syndrome)
Yet with a dirty bomb attack the only people likely to benefit are those already in power by gaining more power as a result.
You obvously haven't read my pro-cockroach manifesto.
Oh, and look, you're my foe, it seems. Got tired of an expert coming up to let you know you're wrong, still wrong, and will likely always be wrong?
That wasn't meant to be insulting or degrading (although, in retrospect I can see how it can be taken that way). I meant it to be humourous (See: https://xkcd.com/179/). I apologize if my comment rubbed you the wrong way. To be fair, though, to an untrained eye, it does look like well composed pseudo-scientific doublespeak, like the pro-Mars posts from K'Breel, speaker for the Council.
Why do so many claim that the second amendment is to protect the people from the state when the amendment clearly says that it is the state that the people are protecting?
I think they must have skipped the chapter in their basic handbook of optics called Babinet's principle. Because they just re-invented Babinet focusing.
By the way, an insightful thing to ponder here is, what happens to the light rays that were aiming for the center? (yes you can use a ray-optic basis set and still have interferrence). Well they were not in the beam! In a plane wave basis set, you would say, well all the plane waves with that K-vector were missing. Thus it's really simple to figure out how to create a dark spot. Just take an axiconically focused beam. Delete all parts of the axicon which focus in the dark region and replace them with any part of the axicon that focuses outside the dark region. Bam. that's it.
Did this myself a decade ago when I wanted arrays of dark spots in focused light. Why would I want that? I was trying to get the same effect as self fillamentation. but without non-linear effects in the media. That way I could create long arrays of ionized spots in the air, and use this to direct lighting beams.
Recently the military created a lightning weapon based on this.
But axicons and babinets prininciple this has been known for centuries.
ray-optic basis set
plane wave basis set
plane waves with that K-vector
axiconically focused beam
parts of the axicon
self fillamentation
long arrays of ionized spots in the air
You're just spewing well formed techno-babble, aren't you? That would have sounded right at home coming out of Wesley Crusher's mouth back in the day.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Are gun owners required to be in the militia? Is the State free to draft gun owners?
And don't get me started on copyrights and patents.
Streaming video over in-flight WiFi? So this means I shouldn't check my notebook?
Choice one: BitCoins are a legitimate currency and are recognized as such by the U.S. government. What he's doing isn't illegal unless they are.
If they are charging him, then they are admitting that BitCons are a legitimate currency. Bad for him, good for the rest of us?
Choice two: Physical BitCoins are novelties sort of like the commemorative coins minted by Franklin Mint. What he's doing isn't illegal unless what Franklin Mint does is illegal.
The Franklin mint may have already gone through all the necessary legal loopholes, since it was a functional mint at one point.
"Spreading of a political message should be done without money."
Easy-Peasy!
Ah! So he's selling wallets?
The big risk of a diversion campaign like that is if the imaginary technology turns out to be real... then we've just inspired our enemies to perfect it, while we've wasted our time.
Like I said: "Common sense says no, but there's always a nagging little doubt in the back of the mind to drive the necessary paranoia."
this was just poor communication, not poor understanding.
Amusing, given your name.
Financial resources aren't the only factor. There are officers, spies and double agents, secure facilities that could be better used for other projects, communications bottlenecks.
Did you ever wonder why we never hear about Seal Teams 1-5? Why do we only ever hear about Seal Team 6's exploits?
Turns out it's exactly the sort of thing you're talking about: a ploy to make the Soviets think the Americans had more going on than they did by skipping straight to 6.
Why not attribute the exploits to all "six" teams, rather than having a conspicuous gap from 1 to 5?
What if the entire MKULTRA project was a scam meant to cause the USSR to waste resources to close this imaginary weapons gap? A few "top secret" documents leaked here; a few rumours there; Common sense says no, but there's always a nagging little doubt in the back of the mind to drive the necessary paranoia. It's perfect.
Further, your desktop computer and/or server isn't a box, stop calling it that.
Mine's a box. Granted, it is made of metal and plastic, rather than cardboard, but that doesn't matter. Boxes can be made of all sorts of materials. Why do you think it isn't a box?
How, exactly, does that stop your friends from mailing you Christmas cards?
If you can't tell us, why did you reply?
Because not being able to tell us is a data point as well.
The purpose of the government is to implement and regulate broadcast standards. It is the government's job to make them turn down the volume.
Give me ePost for bills and a local post office for packages and I'm good.
So how do you get your Christmas cards?
i think what he was getting at was that claims that fall outside the natural order, necessarily require evidence that cannot be explained by natural mechanisms.
Ahh! So it's meant to mean we can't prove or disprove spiritual claims by looking at merely physical evidence?