155 posts • joined Wednesday 14th November 2007 12:39 GMT
When I was young (I was lucky if I got handful of hot gravel to eat before I was beaten to sleep by a rolled up newspaper) you could do such things. You could do a lot of things back then. You could meet up in person, you could call, the stores kept open if the power went out etc etc.
I have a healthy distrust of computers because I know they can fail, and if I am not handed some physical proof that I have done my part, I am calling each piece in the chain to at least get a verbal confirmation that whatever I am putting through is propagating through the system. It is a bloody pain I tell you, and I am of course a bloody pain to them. To get hold of anyone that know that isn't on maternity leave, sick, vacation, just didn't show, on a fashionable late lunch, is still working there, etc takes a while at each office I call. Sometimes I meet up in person. Well, I try. They do no longer have a place that is designed to meet their clients. But you usually get in, and after an hour you can wrangle out a piece of paper with a signature that states that you have sent in the form.
This is when the system is working. I imagine that a system that isn't even tuned to handle one paranoid geek, well, one geek is worth ten ordinary paranoids, but still, such a system I imagine would not be easy to reach on phone when it fails across the board. So, neh, young people are like all people, useless, but I can't blame them on this.
It can solve some of it, in some cases, but it is more a solution for transport than anything else. What we really need a new energy carrier. Since not only does the energy production capacity necessarily correlate with consumption in time, but quite often not in space either.
The trick with oil is not that it is a good energy source, but rather that it is a great energy carrier. In fact it is so good that I struggle to mention any other that can compare.
"The report does also point out that LARs might make war a little less uncivilised, ..."
I don't know why, but the concept of a civilised war gives me the heebie jeebies.
Re: Au-pair in a tank...
If you paint it pink, yes.
Biometric will never work
Fingerprints is a crappy way for secure identity. It has always been, and will always be. So is DNA and any other biometric contraption that is automated. It does work if it is run by humans. There is a very simple reason for this, and I can see no way to overcome it. You leave your "password" everywhere. Bits of DNA falls off you all the time, and you do touch quite a large number of objects each day.
So basically all the security in these systems is based on how good the sensor is, and I will not thrust a single piece of sensor with my bank accounts, e-mail, game accounts, theregister account *shudder*, etc. Sooner or later somebody will make a good enough replica of a finger so that the sensor will believe it is indeed a finger. Then all they need is to be the next in line to use the fuel pump and they can swipe my fingerprint. Or they can pick a piece of hair that fell off me.
Iris is a bit more tricky, but I am quite confident that the technology will get there that they can be scanned from some distance. Or you always have the "Here, try my Google Glasses." The point is that along with all other biometric it is basically public data.
So thus, biometric is stupid, it is a braindead idea from the start. It does work in pass controls, credit cards in stores and all the other places where there is a physical person that checks you are not pulling out a fake finger. There is a reason most debit and credit cards still only use a four digit pin while the rest of the world requires eight character alphanumerical passwords. I have no idea on the motive of this guy, but he is probably smart enough to know this. Yet, he fronts this.
M and M and the Hero
I cannot brag that I have tried every Star Wars game out there, and other sci-fi world based games. But as I see it hero based worlds like Star Wars is very poorly suited for multiplayer games, at least massive multiplayer. The trick for a good massive multiplayer universe is a place were being the average Joe is exiting. A universe were the exiting thing is to be the hero, then it will be a bit too many heroes in the world.
But then again, quite a lot of the massive multiplayer games is it just in name. They are really parallel solo player games. You do the quests that everybody else have done and nobody pauses to say "Listen lady, I just saw that guy over there return it, and I have it from good authority that half a million other people has also retrived your purse, so no, I will not retrieve your stinking purse." There are exceptions of course, but they are rare.
Re: In as many cases
No, I am saying that I am not an astrophysicist and thus I have no way to tell either way except to listen to actual astrophysicists and astronomers. It can be so, it can not be so, and I can make up arguments for most views, and even if I couldn't, it wouldn't have any impact on reality. So when somebody that is an astronomer and a professor at MIT has researched something, and that research is presented in an online newspaper, I would hesitate a little bit more to claim that for her to be right the universe has to be supported by magic. So I was interested in knowing what you have or who you are to back up that claim. Then I got annoyed and this got out of hand. So, meh, not feeding anymore, have a beer instead.
Re: In as many cases
We seem to be writing replies at the same time, and thus it is a little mixed. You did answer my post while I responded to your first response. I could withdraw one and rewrite, but meh. Sorry for the mess.
Re: In as many cases
But now you simply start to argue against things never actually said, unless I am mistaken here. Where does it say that:
"...if you have a planet outside of the hospital zone its not simple enough to say give it a greenhouse effect and it will be in it"
Who has said anything against this?
"...is that there are more ways for the greenhouse effect to produce effects outside the narrow temperature range that allows for liquid water as there are ways for it to do so."
And then we are back at the start where you basically say that greenhouse effect would cause more habitable planets to become inhabitable, and now you argue that the outcome would be net sum zero. And of course we have this:
"I know of no selective pressure to predisposes planets to develop the exactly precisely tuned greenhouse effect to allow life to form. ... So i have to assume its random chance. Greenhouse gas is definitely a possible factor, as are countless other things, but it has as many negative as positive effects. Its is not predisposed towards making a planet hospital." Which raises the question we are asking you. Why do you have to assume that it is so just because you haven't heard of it?
Re: In as many cases
I was worried that I might have been too harsh, but that worry is no more.
First, you postulate that there is no mechanisms that favors certain temperature ranges. You base this on that any such mechanics would be magical. Clearly then such mechanisms do not exists. As evidences go, I find that one stunningly beautiful, totally worthless as evidence of course. It even fails at reasoning, but man, how beautiful.
Second, assuming that is the situation, which I have not researched in any way. Neither by reading other peoples research or done my own. So thus, it is in the blue, and we have to at least look into the possibility of that being the case. And indeed, it is not unlikely. Then your entire argument, as I have already stated and you have not responded to, hinges on half of the planets being habitable in the first place, before you factor in the greenhouse effect. Again see my example above.
Third, it still does not matter since the core is that research only states that no planet in the goldilocks zone does not mean that there isn't a planet in the system with no liquid water on the surface.
So, we are indeed scared if the nonsense you are coming with passes as logic anywhere.
Could you try again please?
Re: In as many cases
Is this just a claim, or do you have any reasoning or research behind this?
I can see that it may be at least as many ways to push it out, but I can not see that it has to be that way. You bring up Venus which is a planet radical different from Earth. First of all it has extreme length days, second the solar radiation is double of that of Earth, third it has no plate tectonic and fourth it has no internally generated magnetic field. Yes, we call it our sister planet, mainly because we are about the same size, we have an atmosphere and neither is orbiting Jupiter, but that is about it.
On the other hand we can easily argue that a planet too far on the inside of the goldilocks zone will have their atmosphere blown away regardless. Then we have a narrow band where the heat from the star is sufficient on it's own (possibly Venus as you point out), after that you have an extremely broad band of planets that would be too cold without a greenhouse effect (Earth and beyond). So you then end up a very small percentage where greenhouse gases could make an otherwise habitable planet inhabitable, then we have a much larger percentage of inhabitable planets that could be knocked into habitable range, and we have the planets that could not be habitable no matter what.
It is like this. You have a lottery, with a 1:100 chance of winning. Then you hand out a second ticket with a 1:10 chance of winning. The only problem is if you win on both your winning is canceled. Still, the second ticket would improve your chance of winning. The only way the second ticket would lower your winning chances is if the first lottery is more than 1:2. And clearly, not half the planets are habitable.
It is a little more complicated than this of course. For instance, the further away from being habitable the less chance there is of course to make them so with greenhouse gases. But unless you can put some actual reasoning or research behind your claim, I fail to see how you can be so sure.
Then we have that you failed to see the main point. That regardless of all of this, the conclusion still stands. That not finding a right sized planet in the goldilocks zone is not enough to conclude there can be no life in the system.
At last I would like to point out that we havn't actually looked at that many places yet. We have basically a good idea that quite a few of the objects orbiting the same star as us are so inhospitable that they are have no chance of having life. The ones that could maybe support life we have not been able to examine closely enough to actually confirm that they don't. Outside the solar system we have no way to check anything.
My hat and coat, please, I'll go and check.
Re: 3D looking storm
25:1 ratio or even bigger between diameter and hight is pretty 2D to me, at least enough that I would not flame somebody for claiming so.
Re: It's only a matter of time...
It is very different to talk to somebody that is there, and to talk to somebody that is elsewhere. It is of course worth looking into by a controlled study like this, and yes talking to passengers are distracting. However it should be less than using a mobile phone. The reason for this is that a passenger is there with you. If a particularly difficult situation arise in the traffic you stop talking and it is quite clear for anybody else there with you that you are preoccupied. Even passengers, at least those that know how to drive, will shut up because they know you are not listening. The counter argument to this is of course that you can do the same on a mobile phone, but the fact of the matter is that you don't, or if you do, you have to process it the decision first. Also in general talking in the telephone is a much more demanding task for the brain that talking to somebody present. Exactly why I do not know, but probably something to do with you spending a lot of time visualizing them and their situation.
I would very much like to see the gender differences in this study. Paris because she has a gender and she is distracting.
Re: @mickey mouse
I am not a lawyer or anything like that, but I think the problem is that law doesn't and shouldn't* consider the offenders state of mind (when not insane that is). It does take into account intent, but we do not judge the individual as a person, just the act. For instance if I drive down my wife and kill her it the resulting punishment is highly dependent on my intention. If it was an accident it comes down to how careless I was, if I wanted to kill her it comes down to if I had planed it or if it was in the heat of the moment. But, if I am a sadist and take pleasure in it, it won't factor in unless it results in a behaviour from me that the law cares about.
And there you have it. The eternal problem for the lawmaker, how to write a law that covers all cases. Because as moral beings we can easily judge and say that one crime is worse than another, how to write that down into a law, and make it possible to prove, is another thing.
Because I agree with you. Anybody doing that are not fit to live among the rest of us, and I retain little hope that they will ever reach a state where they are. However, there are rapists that I think could. And with the principle that law is there to protect everybody and if you are not able to separate between the two, then you have to judge the two as mildly as the second group.
When that is said, I do think that the law treats these things too mildly. Basically that it has inherited an outdated view that women that have put themselves in a position where they can be raped are some to blame for their own misery. It is a severe form for violence with highly likely long term harm, and it is hard to prove. (I also think that false accusations of rape should carry the same punishment (has to be proven of course).) So we can argue that rape in general should carry longer sentences, but any aggravating circumstances has to apply for all cases and the law can't be so specific that it mentions "if the victim is carried from house to house over an evening and...". We are using our morals to judge the offender in these cases, but Justice is blind and I think she should be. It doesn't make her perfect, but the alternative is worse.
*Well, "shouldn't" depends on your personal opinion of course. Also, for some reason it carries some weight in USA after all, but when it is the other way around. "The defendant comes from a well respected family and is important...." or some other crap like that.
Is this cereal?
I can't tell if this should be joke-tagged or moron-tagged, hard to know on the internet.
I can see my house from here.
A cereal world
Judging by the responses you got it seems that it has become a cereal world. It is hard to tell on a few of them, but others clearly take your comment cereal. I am not sure if it is Internet in itself or if it is the loonies roaming around the comment sections, but it seems that something has fatally wounded sarcasm, irony, goofy comments and untagged jokes as an art form.
Could somebody please explain this one to me, please? I get that hapticz tries to communicate something, and I get that there is annoyance or fake annoyance over the use of the word slurping. However the message and purpose of the post is lost on me. Anybody care to enlighten me?
Re: Micro gravitation changes?
If you have a lottery where the winner number is only revealed if you win. And suppose you decide on a number and then a friend comes along and says you should add one to that number. There are two outcomes, either you win, or you do not. If you do not it is still highly unlikely that you would have won on your original number and you will never know, but if you do win you know it is because you added one.
Back to China, if it does hit us at some point we know it is their fault. If we avoided disaster because of it (it nudged it just out of course), we will never know. So....like...blame Canada! (Sorry, it is my goto blame-country)
Re: The Mote in God's Eye (Niven/Pournelle)
Yes, I am shamed to admit that I had to look it up myself, and not having read it I am a bit of a loss whether I was insulted or not. Since it apparently is too clever for me I'll give it a thumbs up just in case.
I'll give you a chance to look up the word in a dictionary.
Re: Closeness... too close for comfort??
Re: I think I can speak with authority when I say that
I on the other hand am pretty sure the Sun is weightless.
Re: Re: bad survey
Read the survey.
It doesn't conclude much at all as far as I can see. It is the author of the article that concludes and gives credit to the survey. Where the survey concludes with sentences along the line of:
"Social media users who are college graduates are significantly more likely than those with lower levels of education to say that they experience some difficulty in managing the privacy controls on their profiles."
The article says:
"Around half of users found existing privacy controls somewhat difficult to use, but the data found that the smarter your background, the dumber you are on this skill."
Erm, it doesn't say any of that.
I just skimmed through the pdf linked to in the article and basically it doesn't say any of what the article claim it does. Does anybody know which study the article actually refers to?
I particulary wonder about the following from the article:
"The latest data from the Pew Research Center shows men to be the least privacy-conscious people online, and the most likely to make a gaffe on social networking sites."
"Women are the smarter social sex, says study"
"Around half of users found existing privacy controls somewhat difficult to use, but the data found that the smarter your background, the dumber you are on this skill."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny, but I can't see the keys when I am using...
Sigh, I have not said you have to choose either or, in fact I have repeatedly said the exact opposite. However, it seems that the finer points of the English language eludes me once again. When I talk about function I also include ease of use etc. And when I talk about form as the opposite to function I talk about everything that does not have a "function". So the colour of an ambulance have a very important function, but the gray colour on a private car usually does not have a function and is thus part of the form.
If this is incorrect usage of the terms in English I apologize. If you continue to hold it against me, sue me, I am Norwegian.*
*That does make the apology sound bitter and sarcastic. Here have another smiley face.
Re: Re: Re: Funny, but I can't see the keys when I am using...
It is not really what I said. First of all, I didn't really comment on what things should be like, I commented on what people think they should be like. Second, I have no problem with, and have not said anything to suggest that, things being beautiful. In fact I prefer things to be beautiful. You see, beautiful things tend to be more pleasing to the eye. I have however come to terms with what I regard as beauty differs from the opinion of the majority, but I digress.
What I do mean however, even though I didn't say it in my post, is that function should be more important than form when judging a product/tool. Or at the very least, equally important.
I do think we disagree though. If drag in Oscar Wilde to justify buying products not because they serve our needs, but because the manufacturer made it "shiny", then I feel we disagree on a lot of things. I am perfectly alright with that (see smiley face).
Re: Re: can you say class action ?
You are correct that lithium batteries are not able to cope with being discharged below some threshold. The battery itself however do not necessary self-destruct, but it might have so the control circuits puts it to sleep (coma?). And that is the point really, the circuits should kill the output long before it goes that far. When something cost a year's salary you expect it to have more safeguards in place than a simple laptop battery, not less.
Re: Funny, but I can't see the keys when I am using...
The sad thing is that people buy their stuff primarily on how they look. This goes for everything, mobile phones, apartments, cars, clothes, food etc. In some cases the primary function of the stuff does not even factor in as a buy criteria.
This is why there are colours on the box, which leads to a pet theory of mine:
"The quality of a product is inverse proportional to the number of colours on the box it comes in."
Re: "most Brits find it hard to understand why "Jap" is a racial slur in the US."
A fucking idiot is a procreating idiot.
All right, all right, I'll go now. Mine is the slightly humorous one that everybody just find silly.
Re: Commentard is OK, Freetard not so much
Mud-slinging is why I come here.
Seriously though, it kind of is. I take open argument based bias over bias hidden as objectivity any day. Take the copyright debate, other media outlets tend to either refer to the freetards as criminals or more like digital freedom fighters. If not themselves the angle on their coverage tend to lean one way or the other, and all under the disguise of being objective and balanced. I much rather prefer El Reg's coverage where they say what everybody knows that the vast majority of people downloading stuff do it because it is convenient and that they do not want to pay. There is no large political agenda and they are not part of a vast criminal syndicate. And after summing all that up nicely in a single word with fuzzy meaning, the vultures move on to debate the actual issues around copyright with actual arguments.
Btw, since when did vultures care about what people think? It is not like something that waits for the prey to die before engaging is all that into playing fair.
Re: Re: Tar
Yes, and I plan to show that by proving it for each and every one of us. I will start with myself and I want to support my case by submitting all posts I have made so far and all future posts as evidence.
First of all I would think that it was derogatory to us commentards and not people with mental handicaps. Anyhow, I have always preferred to regard it only as tard like in tar. So something that is thick, slows down movement, sticky and hard to work with it.
Second, when will people get it through their thick skulls that words only carry the meaning the sender puts into it, and that it is exceptionally rude of the receiver not to try to interpret that.
Re: Re: Re: Effectively random?
Dude! Provided you are the same guy behind the Guy Fawkes mask as further above, you are the one bashing somebody else over what you perceive to be the correct phrase to use. When other people then argue that your nitpicking is actually wrong you do not get to complain about people nitpicking.
Re: I was going to ask a silly question but it would just get lost in the rest of them.
Question: What are all those hemispherical pock marks caused by?
Statement: It can't be incoming unless they were all aimed expertly to hit at an angle of 90 degrees.
Correction: Yes, they can.
Querstion: Wouldn't meteorites hit at anything between tangential to perpendicular in a 360 degree plane?
Answer: Close enough, not entirely so, but close enough.
Question: And wouldn't some of them hop and/or gouge and/or fail to embed fully?
Answer: No, not really. It depends on course, but at least it is very unlikely.
Question: Didn't the astronauts take a pick and shovel with them to dig for samples?
Answ...: What are you talking about?
You could just try google, you know that? I just did a search for the words why, are, craters and round. But anyhow, here goes. Imagine the biggest baddest gun you can think of, then try to shoot at a soft target at an angle. The angle has to be extremely low for it to bounce. Now, imagine that you are shooting a piece of porous rock and not metal into a layer of dust. Then try to multiply the velocity from the gun with several orders of magnitude. I have no idea on how fast bullets go, but a supersonic bullet at Mach 3 would travel at 1 km/s, meteorites travel at 50 (last number I saw on one, obviously they all hit with different velocities). Now, multiply the mass with even more orders of magnitude so that you remove any chance of an elastic impact.
To sum it up impact craters are round because basically it is equivalent to bury a large bomb deep under the surface and detonating it.
I am pretty sure that the tidal forces acting on a tidal locked object do not do any work on the object. You can of course argue that the tidal forces from the sun may have caused it, but I somehow doubt that they are big enough.
Re: Re: Re: Reverse Thrust!
Erm, the further out the orbit is, the lower the speed, but the sum of potential and kinetic energy is higher. Any burst in any direction will throw any satellite into an elliptic orbit, and then the math gets complicated.
So, yes, you need energy to reach a higher orbit and yes the velocity will be lower there, and of course the angular velocity will be even lower since the length of the orbit is increased in addition to the lower velocity.
To the original poster. A decaying orbit will only be achieved when there is a drag at some point, just lowering the speed won't accomplish anything since once in has fallen down a bit it will gain it back and then some. A drag can be accomplished if the elliptic orbit goes through the atmosphere. Shooting the debris "backwards" with a spring won't even make a dent on the velocity.
Re: Oh Dear
That was my icky feeling also when I read about it, but when you look past the sales pitch and press release packages it might not be that bad of an idea. Isn't it essential an attempt to make an off the shelf defunct satellite deorbiter? Nothing else than a small booster and a simple grabber. The grabber won't need to be strong as long as you manage to match the speed first and the booster doesn't have to stronger than to gently push it out of orbit with a few Newtons of thrust.
Btw, there is no claim that this has to be profitable, or at least not in that sense. If those gold bars on the moon your were talking about somehow prevented us from having any satellites in orbit I bet we would contemplate moving them.
Re: Is there a contamination risk?
Is there a contamination risk? -No.
How much junk can it take? -One piece, as stated in the article
Can they determine the composition of a piece of junk? -No, but since it probably will go for the larger pieces I would think that asking the manufacturer is easier. As for the objects better left up there I have no idea what that would be. Are you thinking of the sun or something like that?
Would it be possible to recover these materials? -Yes, but I think, I am not sure, that it is more expensive to recover things in space than to get it back, and it is at least way more expensive than the junk is worth. It is after all junk. The bots themselves are worth more, not to mention the putting them up there.
Little ones can easily be created by smashing big bits together or ramming big bits with small bits. So the big ones are a big issue. I recon the big fear is a cascade effect and big pieces would be vital for that to happen. Kind of like nuclear material reaching critical mass, or rather super-critical.
Orbit around hilltop @Chris
You would think that, but you actually get stable orbits around L4 and L5. Try to think of them as points with negative mass and thus negative gravity, and like you will form an orbit around a well, and not fall in it, you will thus make an orbit around a hill. It makes my head spin every time, but greater minds than mine say they are stable and that you do get an orbit in them and the orbit comes naturally. Besides we actually observed them to be stable as well, so it isn't even theory, it is observed facts.
@Chris orbits around L1-L3
They are semi-stable. L1, L2 and L3 are saddle points. So you if are a little bit off in the plane that is perpendicular to the line between the heavier objects in your system (in this case the Earth and the Moon) you will be drawn towards the point and be pushed out along the line. Now then, since you are drawn to a point in a plane you naturally create an orbit in that plane. The problem is of course that have to stay in that plane, if you stray just a little you will fall off, however it is fairly "easy" to maintain and consume less fuel than to balance the craft in the point itself.
If I recall this correctly the SOHO orbits L1, but that might also be due to being able to keep the the radio link open. The sun is after all directly behind L1 (earth-sun).
As for keeping tabs on our friends behind the moon a relay satellite in any orbit around the moon can do that for you. And if you want a constant feed you just need to have the orbit being on the plane perpendicular to the earth-moon line. When you are that far out in both directions a few kilometers off the surface is probably sufficient to being able to see both points.
So you can use appendages to keep or regain balance? Come on! If you have ever walked on ice, seen a linedancer or a cat it should be rather obvious. In 1894 Étienne Jules Marey researched this on cats, and I do not think he was the first. (Technically it was how cats are able to turn in the air without external influence.) Oh, but I see, it is linked to search and rescue. Sigh, the default link for any new piece of tech that you have no specific need for, but think might be useful down the line. And this has to be the weakest link I have seen by far. Weaker than the link between putting cameras on phones to aid first responders by taking pictures of accidents and sending it to them.
I can't wait for their research into the colour of the sky on a blue sky day and how that can be vital knowledge for search and rescue people when they need to distinguish Na'vis from the sky. When I think about it that needs a "learning from nature, because nature is the bestest on everything and we humans are stupid"-angle. Maybe something about how some obscure insects use this to figure out the difference between the forest they live in and the sky.
Man up people. You did this because you wanted to make big robots because basically that is what we* all want to do, and you couldn't be bothered by solving this on your own and doing the math so you cheated by looking on how somebody else had done it, in this case nature.
Get over it
It is pretty much the same place, get over it. Let us review the facts we know about areas. For the first contender we have:
Name: New Zealand
Location: Down to the right
And for the other one we have:
Location: Down to the right
Yes, that is my hat and coat. Why do you a..oh, you want me to take it and leave, got it
Admit it, you are trolling for a hug, aren't you?
You could just ask you know.
1. No solid or liquid actually burns. Only vapor burns. So that goes for all liquids, not just diesel.
2. It is perfectly valid to say that something burns well even though it might take some effort to get going. I will for instance claim that firewood burns rather well.
3. Petrol engines can't really run on diesel, but diesel engines can run on petrol. However the petrol will no lubricate the diesel pump and thus break the engine. You might get a petrol engine to work with diesel as you say when you have petrol as a primer, but you are really running it on weak petrol and you will clog the spark plug fast. Diesel engines on the other hand are in essence multifuel engines.
4. Diesel engines does not rely on compression to heat the diesel until it vaporises and explodes. The compression of the diesel is done in the diesel pump and pressed into the engine when the piston is at the top or near the top. The nozzle causes the atomisation and the heat that is caused by the compression of the _air_ in the cylinder ignites it. If you compressed a diesel and air mixture with the piston it would ignite earlier and earlier as the engine heated. You would also need to run it on much lower compression. The compression does not heat the diesel, it heats the air.
5. The point here was that spraying diesel under pressure onto a fire is maybe not like throwing gasoline on the fire, but still is likely to fuel it.