Imagine we are now about 35 million years in the future, humans are but a legend among the nanobot population, and the event described in TFA happens.
It is not actually a Quasar event, but the Black Hole does as predicted in TFA where, "The relatively quiet black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy could one day reignite, spewing forth so much radiation that the sky would never darken."
As the reigniting occurs the Milky Way Black Hole begins emitting heavy elements as part of the reaction as it begins to do it's thing.
Let us imagine a big wave of iridium enveloping the galaxy and settling on the surface of the most planets. Now imagine a simultanious Gamma burst and die-off if a whole bunch of life forms all over the Galaxy.
Then we can have a talk about the controversy as the nano folks argue about galactic warming being the cause of all that environmental destruction:-P
Hmmm this could make for a pretty good science fiction story.
In case I need to spell this out... IANAAP and IANAPG
Consider the hypothesis about the layer of enriched iridium in rocks formed at the boundary between the Triassic and Jurassic geologic periods and the associated extinction event... 200 million years ago.
And the similar hypothesis about the layer of enriched iridium in rocks formed at the boundary between Cretaceous and those of the Tertiary periods and the associated extinction event... 65.5 million years ago.
Could that suggest an alternative to the "impact from an asteroid or comet" hypothesis? Could this actually be the observance of a 100 million year "or so" natural galactic cycle?
If that is indeed the case, we should expect our local galactic black hole to go "milky white" in 15 to 35 million years or so.
Keep your sunglasses handy!
BTW, if you couldn't already tell... IANAAP and IANAPG
Consider the hypothesis about the layer of enriched iridium in rocks formed at the boundary between the Triassic and Jurassic geologic periods and the associated extinction event... 200 million years ago.
And the similar hypothesis about the layer of enriched iridium in rocks formed at the boundary between Cretaceous and those of the Tertiary periods and the associated extinction event... 65.5 million years ago.
Could that suggest an alternative to the "impact from an asteroid or comet" hypothesis? Could this actually be the observance of a 100 million year "or so" natural galactic cycle?
If that is indeed the case, we should expect our local galactic black hole to go "milky white" in 15 to 35 million years or so.
Galactic Warming... Keep your sunglasses handy!
BTW, if you couldn't already tell... IANAAP and IANAG
I don't get where you are going with this, sorry:)
Off on a tangent apparently...;-)
Ironically, I even included a bunch of links citing Wikipedia directly.
Where I was going, is that Wikipedia's "role" so to speak, is still debated even among its contributors and admins.
Where I started was here, so I don't think I contradicted myself in my responses. My linking could have been better I suppose, thats what commenting while multitasking will get ya.
"You are trying to support that Wikipedia is unreliable..."
No what I am saying is that you should NEVER directly cite a Wikipedia article in an academic paper, (The same goes for scholarly publications, etc.). Your readers will think you are at best lazy and at worst an idiot if you do so. But that doesnt mean that I think Wikipedia is useless; far from it in fact. It's great for Background information, Links, Keywords and References. It's a great tool to help focus research and get a little context and background information. Kind of like an encyclopedia, but where the information can change quickly and sometimes inaccurately (at least until corrected by the admins).
Wikipedia is not any of a very long list of other terrible ideas. We can't hope to anticipate every bad idea one of our millions of editors is going to have. Almost everything on this page made it here because somebody managed to come up with some new bad idea that we hadn't previously anticipated. See WP:BEANS
There are a whole bunch of things that Wikipedia is, and is not. And as the link suggests many of those things too, are subject to discussion and sometimes even change.
I'm not hatin' on Wiki here folks. Wikipedia it is what it is.
You are of course familiar with the term "Link Rot" are you not?
So due to that alone I would not use a direct link to a Wikipedia page as a serious citation of any kind, although I myself do occasionally use Wiki links while commenting around and about the tubes:-)
We agree more than we disagree here, the scholarly approach is to link directly to source material.
Look, Wikipedia is a good resource and one which I use myself; I just don't recommend citing Wikipedia directly while participating in serious discussion, or when publishing, or for one's homework. Wikipedia simply cannot, by its very nature, have the necessary gravitas to be considered a formal resource for facts. It can only help guide one to those resources.
I'll paraphrase another slashdotter from a few months back who said something along the lines of the following:
Wikipedia is not really an Encyclopedia; it's more like a huge whiteboard that anyone can add to.
Even if you have knowledge in some field and have confirmed the page correct at the time you linked to it or cited it, I could since have vandalized or added an incorrect statement the page you linked to or cited, and so could hundreds of millions of other Internet users; if you don't have knowledge in that field, you shouldn't even be thinking of citing a source that could have been produced by someone no more knowledgeable than you. Whiteboards are great for throwing ideas together, but they make for awful references.
If you are so lacking in knowledge in some field that don't know where to reference beyond Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't be commentating or submitting papers within that field at all. At the very least, look at source material listed at the bottom of the article. Read these sources, ensure they're in agreement, then cite the one you consider most authoritative. If necessary, use other means to find a better range of sources - a search engine will not selectively list sources to support the biases of the article writer.
IMHO citing Wikipedia is another way of saying "I'm lazy and/or not very knowledgeable on this topic". Either possibility renders your post, opinion, or paper not worth the time required to read it.
Since you may have had the seeds of a very good argument, point, or paper take the time to cite your work properly; others will appreciate your effort and professors will reward and recognize your scholarly approach.
Sorry, I don't remember the UID of the orginal poster of this very good advice. I had pasted it into an email to a student who asked if Wiki sourced material was trustworthy enough to use in a debate.
Considering that 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop was converted into 5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006, (and that amount replaced only 1 percent of U.S. oil consumption).
The prices of food products containing barley and wheat are also on the rise because farmers are switching to growing subsidized corn crops instead of other less profitable grain crops.
Dwindling barley feedstock supplies also currently coincide with a pretty large reduction in other crops used as livestock feed, prices of which are also climbing.
Thus another unintended consequence is the increase in the price of meat and dairy products consumers are currently experiencing as well.
We haven't even started to talk about how diesel fuel prices are simultaneously causing food, feedstock, and crop prices to skyrocket.
There is a "lite" version... Opera. Even that's getting a bit bloaty these days, (Bitorrent client built in? Why?)
Seriously, who in their right mind wants their intertube browser to be their OS shell? Talk about drive-by downloads. I be "driving by" this one that's for sure.
Windows Storage Server 2003, Enterprise Edition has a 8 GB limit
Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition Windows 64 GB
Server 2003 with Service Pack 1 (SP1), Enterprise Edition 16 GB
Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition 128 GB and 16 GB
Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition 32 GB and 16 GB
So we agree that with PAE enabled it can be done, it just isn't done on 32 bit Vista.
But with Windows 32 bit Vista, it's entirely a software limitation.
You can run a 64 bit version of Windows on exactly the same hardware and all of the RAM will then be available and visibly reported by the OS.
Actually, It's goofiness like the memory limitation that make Vista such a hard pill to swallow for so many IT folks, especially for something that took five years to develop and costs around hundred bucks to license.
I don't think that the Russians, Iranians or even the Chinese are who would be looking for Bush's deleted emails. My point was that the email is gone even if the disks were only casually overwritten.
You are certainly quite correct that 32x overwrite, high field degaussing, incineration, grinding into powder and burying the remnant powder somewhere out in the desert, is the way to go. The last I read, that is the current "Top Secret" data destruction standard, (and my info is also likely a bit out of date). Such disposal would be far more preferable to allowing those rival states to analyze for secret data once stored on government data storage devices because they were only casually wiped as I described above.
I certainly wasn't suggesting otherwise.
Such device and data destruction is also somewhat preferable to simply allowing a foreign national to make a few copies of the sensitive data and deliver it by hand to those very same rivals (as apparently happened during Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and I'd wager is still occurring in the Bush Jr. administration)
I simply don't think that the deleted email in discussion here is recoverable... at all.
With DOD level (3 pass overwrite) or better disk wiping, the overwritten data cannot be read back or recovered by any current disk drive technology or laboratory technique. Period.
It was suggested back in the late '90s that an electron microscope could possibly be used to read and interpret any patterns that were not fully overwritten by the process. Theoretically this can be done - but in practice... it's simply a myth.
Multiple random data overwrites and some physical destruction of the media (even a drilled hole should be enough), will insure that the data is permanently gone.
One fact to think about is the failure of anyone yet to read the "18 minute gap" Rosemary Woods created on the tape of "Tricky Dicky" (Nixon) talking about the Watergate break-in. Even though data density on an analog recorder from the '60s was about a million times less than current drive tech, and even though any audio recovered wouldn't need a high degree of accuracy, to date not one phoneme has been recovered from that tape. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
The BushCo emails are gone folks. To that great bit bucket in the sky.
I think a lot of people here are really kidding themselves if they think the format has any future whatsoever.
I think you've missed the point then. The point is that HD-DVD is a quick, cheap and dirty way to obtain HD quality playback economically right now. The format may or may not be included on optical devices in the future, depending on whether the manufacturers think they will gain a little edge on the competition by offering backwards compatibility in new devices as they are designed in the future.
If it's easy enough, the manufacturers generally err on the side of adding the format's capability. Thus we already see products that look like this SAMSUNG Blu-ray and HD DVD Hi-Def Duo Player BD-UP5000. A standalone combo player available today that works with both formats.
Is the benefit of cheap HD right now worth the risk that the backwards compatibility may not ever appear? For some it obviously is worth the risk and thus the speculation about said future compatibility.
Now youre narrowing your expected definition of COMBO drive. Since the only difference in the floppy question is form factor (because the media and mechanisms are nearly identical except for media size itself) the comparison isn't really accurate.
Does anyone remember Super Disk drives? Those were a combo drive that would accept traditional 3.5 inch floppies in addition to being able to read and write its native 120 MB (later 240 MB) disks. These drives used the same slot and mechanism for read write of two highly disparate formats.
Actually the comparison of this media works on a number of levels. The floppy was long outmoded and of insufficient capacity for several years, but the drive was still deemed necessary to at least read historical data. The introduction of the LS-120 and the later variant LS-240 SuperDisk was too little, too late. By 2000, the entire removable-disk category quickly faced obsolescence because of CD-R and CD-RW drives.
The more I think about this the more I see a parallel in the current situation; with Bluray being the "Super Disk" (HD-DVD could possibly be considered the "Zip" drive) and with the entire category of removable optical media facing overall obsolescence due to the higher capacity of solid-state (USB flash drives or SSD hard disks). Eventually owners of BluRay optical media may end up, like owners of SuperDisks, in possession of a device with a quietly discontinued format, and it's media becoming hard to find.
More likely, we may just end up with more of the same the alphabet soup that we already enjoy with optical media and it may well include the HD-DVD in the string of formats listed before it's all over.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not actually a Quasar event, but the Black Hole does as predicted in TFA where, "The relatively quiet black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy could one day reignite, spewing forth so much radiation that the sky would never darken." As the reigniting occurs the Milky Way Black Hole begins emitting heavy elements as part of the reaction as it begins to do it's thing.
Let us imagine a big wave of iridium enveloping the galaxy and settling on the surface of the most planets. Now imagine a simultanious Gamma burst and die-off if a whole bunch of life forms all over the Galaxy.
Then we can have a talk about the controversy as the nano folks argue about galactic warming being the cause of all that environmental destruction :-P
Hmmm this could make for a pretty good science fiction story.
In case I need to spell this out ... IANAAP and IANAPG
I Am Not An AstroPhysicist
I Am Not A Planetary Geologist
And the similar hypothesis about the layer of enriched iridium in rocks formed at the boundary between Cretaceous and those of the Tertiary periods and the associated extinction event ... 65.5 million years ago.
Could that suggest an alternative to the "impact from an asteroid or comet" hypothesis? Could this actually be the observance of a 100 million year "or so" natural galactic cycle?
If that is indeed the case, we should expect our local galactic black hole to go "milky white" in 15 to 35 million years or so.
Keep your sunglasses handy!
BTW, if you couldn't already tell ... IANAAP and IANAPG
And the similar hypothesis about the layer of enriched iridium in rocks formed at the boundary between Cretaceous and those of the Tertiary periods and the associated extinction event ... 65.5 million years ago.
Could that suggest an alternative to the "impact from an asteroid or comet" hypothesis? Could this actually be the observance of a 100 million year "or so" natural galactic cycle?
If that is indeed the case, we should expect our local galactic black hole to go "milky white" in 15 to 35 million years or so.
Galactic Warming ... Keep your sunglasses handy!
BTW, if you couldn't already tell ... IANAAP and IANAG
Off on a tangent apparently ... ;-)
Ironically, I even included a bunch of links citing Wikipedia directly.
Where I was going, is that Wikipedia's "role" so to speak, is still debated even among its contributors and admins.
Where I started was here, so I don't think I contradicted myself in my responses. My linking could have been better I suppose, thats what commenting while multitasking will get ya.
No what I am saying is that you should NEVER directly cite a Wikipedia article in an academic paper, (The same goes for scholarly publications, etc.). Your readers will think you are at best lazy and at worst an idiot if you do so. But that doesnt mean that I think Wikipedia is useless; far from it in fact. It's great for Background information, Links, Keywords and References. It's a great tool to help focus research and get a little context and background information. Kind of like an encyclopedia, but where the information can change quickly and sometimes inaccurately (at least until corrected by the admins).
But don't listen to me ... listen to Wikipedia itself:
There are a whole bunch of things that Wikipedia is, and is not. And as the link suggests many of those things too, are subject to discussion and sometimes even change. I'm not hatin' on Wiki here folks. Wikipedia it is what it is.
So due to that alone I would not use a direct link to a Wikipedia page as a serious citation of any kind, although I myself do occasionally use Wiki links while commenting around and about the tubes :-)
We agree more than we disagree here, the scholarly approach is to link directly to source material.
Is it?
February 2006; Wikipedia under the microscope over accuracy
In January 2007 Blogger Rick Jelliffe reported that Microsoft had offered to pay him to edit Wikipedia's Open Office XML page on their behalf.
Just last week Phorm admitted that it deleted key factual parts of a Wikipedia article about the huge controversy over deals with BT.
Look, Wikipedia is a good resource and one which I use myself; I just don't recommend citing Wikipedia directly while participating in serious discussion, or when publishing, or for one's homework. Wikipedia simply cannot, by its very nature, have the necessary gravitas to be considered a formal resource for facts. It can only help guide one to those resources.
Considering that 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop was converted into 5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006, (and that amount replaced only 1 percent of U.S. oil consumption). The prices of food products containing barley and wheat are also on the rise because farmers are switching to growing subsidized corn crops instead of other less profitable grain crops. Dwindling barley feedstock supplies also currently coincide with a pretty large reduction in other crops used as livestock feed, prices of which are also climbing. Thus another unintended consequence is the increase in the price of meat and dairy products consumers are currently experiencing as well. We haven't even started to talk about how diesel fuel prices are simultaneously causing food, feedstock, and crop prices to skyrocket.
US Planning Response To a Cyber Attack was discussed more than a year ago in fact.
It's still worth discussing.
Your real name wouldn't be "Private Joe Bauers" by any chance would it?
Seriously, who in their right mind wants their intertube browser to be their OS shell? Talk about drive-by downloads. I be "driving by" this one that's for sure.
It's not only the routers you should worry about, but also Dihydrogen Monoxide exposure... Oh the humanity!
Windows Storage Server 2003, Enterprise Edition has a 8 GB limit
Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition Windows 64 GB
Server 2003 with Service Pack 1 (SP1), Enterprise Edition 16 GB
Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition 128 GB and 16 GB
Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition 32 GB and 16 GB
So we agree that with PAE enabled it can be done, it just isn't done on 32 bit Vista.
Good points all. I was assuming 64 bit capable hardware and at least 4 gig capacities on the MB.
You can run a 64 bit version of Windows on exactly the same hardware and all of the RAM will then be available and visibly reported by the OS.
Actually, It's goofiness like the memory limitation that make Vista such a hard pill to swallow for so many IT folks, especially for something that took five years to develop and costs around hundred bucks to license.
For people with 4GB installed:
You may see 3.2GB available, or 2GB, or 3.58GB, or 3GB or 2.5 GB, or sometimes 2.8GB available. But you'll never see the whole 4 gig.
It's both sad and funny at the same time.
Have some faith! Microsoft can always do worse!
You are certainly quite correct that 32x overwrite, high field degaussing, incineration, grinding into powder and burying the remnant powder somewhere out in the desert, is the way to go. The last I read, that is the current "Top Secret" data destruction standard, (and my info is also likely a bit out of date). Such disposal would be far more preferable to allowing those rival states to analyze for secret data once stored on government data storage devices because they were only casually wiped as I described above.
I certainly wasn't suggesting otherwise.
Such device and data destruction is also somewhat preferable to simply allowing a foreign national to make a few copies of the sensitive data and deliver it by hand to those very same rivals (as apparently happened during Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and I'd wager is still occurring in the Bush Jr. administration)
I simply don't think that the deleted email in discussion here is recoverable ... at all.
It was suggested back in the late '90s that an electron microscope could possibly be used to read and interpret any patterns that were not fully overwritten by the process. Theoretically this can be done - but in practice ... it's simply a myth.
Multiple random data overwrites and some physical destruction of the media (even a drilled hole should be enough), will insure that the data is permanently gone.
One fact to think about is the failure of anyone yet to read the "18 minute gap" Rosemary Woods created on the tape of "Tricky Dicky" (Nixon) talking about the Watergate break-in. Even though data density on an analog recorder from the '60s was about a million times less than current drive tech, and even though any audio recovered wouldn't need a high degree of accuracy, to date not one phoneme has been recovered from that tape. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
The BushCo emails are gone folks. To that great bit bucket in the sky.
Funny thing about that, I have a Super Disk in the computer I'm using right now. The Zip and Jazz drives are in a box in the closet.
I think you've missed the point then. The point is that HD-DVD is a quick, cheap and dirty way to obtain HD quality playback economically right now. The format may or may not be included on optical devices in the future, depending on whether the manufacturers think they will gain a little edge on the competition by offering backwards compatibility in new devices as they are designed in the future.
If it's easy enough, the manufacturers generally err on the side of adding the format's capability. Thus we already see products that look like this SAMSUNG Blu-ray and HD DVD Hi-Def Duo Player BD-UP5000. A standalone combo player available today that works with both formats.
Is the benefit of cheap HD right now worth the risk that the backwards compatibility may not ever appear? For some it obviously is worth the risk and thus the speculation about said future compatibility.
I use a computer in my living room, so for me the difference between a standalone and a computer drive is not that great.
You have to admit that your original post sounded like you were sipping the Sony Kool-Aid before hitting the submit button.
Does anyone remember Super Disk drives? Those were a combo drive that would accept traditional 3.5 inch floppies in addition to being able to read and write its native 120 MB (later 240 MB) disks. These drives used the same slot and mechanism for read write of two highly disparate formats.
Actually the comparison of this media works on a number of levels. The floppy was long outmoded and of insufficient capacity for several years, but the drive was still deemed necessary to at least read historical data. The introduction of the LS-120 and the later variant LS-240 SuperDisk was too little, too late. By 2000, the entire removable-disk category quickly faced obsolescence because of CD-R and CD-RW drives.
The more I think about this the more I see a parallel in the current situation; with Bluray being the "Super Disk" (HD-DVD could possibly be considered the "Zip" drive) and with the entire category of removable optical media facing overall obsolescence due to the higher capacity of solid-state (USB flash drives or SSD hard disks). Eventually owners of BluRay optical media may end up, like owners of SuperDisks, in possession of a device with a quietly discontinued format, and it's media becoming hard to find.
More likely, we may just end up with more of the same the alphabet soup that we already enjoy with optical media and it may well include the HD-DVD in the string of formats listed before it's all over.