1998 posts • joined Wednesday 10th June 2009 11:28 GMT
Mathematical crypto also has its problems
Crypto systems have a critical weakness: private keys have to be kept secret. If they fall into the wrong hands, the cryptography is broken.
There are also mathematical weaknesses. It is now known that not all keys are equal. Statistical techniques have been developed that make a subset of keys very much more crackable than others the same length. Of course, once such an attack is known, vulnerable keys can be rejected, but suppose there are other mathematical weaknesses that have not been made public?
Also, most modern crypto depends on the Riemann hypothesis being true. Few mathematicians think otherwise, but it has yet to be actually proved. By the way, if you ever discover a disproof, spam it far and wide and then go into hiding for a few months. It's the only way you'll remain alive and at liberty!
Re: No life?
Venus is too close to the sun for terraforming (unless orbiting sunshades are possible). Venus suffers/ suffered a runaway greenhouse effect caused in the first instance by water vapour, which we couldn't do without.
Mars's problem is low gravity, meaning atmosphere (especially water vapour) tends to drift off into space. However, that's a slow problem taking geological time. It *might* be possible to terraform Mars by directing a lot of cometary ice at the planet to replace or supply the necessary water. Then pump loads of CFCs into the Martian atmosphere to create a super-greenhouse effect, to compensate for the weaker sunlight.
Of course that way there would never be an ozone layer to keep UV out, but Mars is further from the Sun so theUV will at least be weaker by proportion. We'd have to colonise the Oort clouds first, though, to get hold of the vast amounts of water-ice it would take.
Re: Fossil Finds...
Either way, it would cast a whole new perspective on our place in the Uniwerse.
Unfortunately, not so (unless Martian biochemistry proves to be utterly un-earthlike). Extinction-level meteor impacts can eject bits of Mars into orbits that are later captured by Earth, and to a lesser extent (because it's more "uphill") vice versa. Microbes can survive incredible accelerations, and a long time in vacuum. Therefore, it's a near certainty that whichever planet first evolved microbial life would have spread its microbes to the other. So if we find familar RNA-based microbes on Mars, they probably originated here. That, or Earthlife originated on Mars.
Citation hardly needed: do the statistics
Someone who was ten in 1945 would be 77 today. The majority of such people will still be living. The activities of the Gestapo in the occupied Nederlands are well-documented. And the legal structures of a country usually arise out of its history.
It is of course a hypothesis: as with most statements about society it's almost impossible to prove scientifically.
This is probably because even today there are people in the Netherlands living with the memory of jackbooted thugs arriving at their front doors and dragging off their loved ones (parents, mostly, these days) to be "interrogated" and shot.
The Netherlands may have gone too far to the opposite extreme, but it's certainly the lesser error.
Re: Odd system
Some branches of my extended family tree are extinct.
When the state of Germany was founded under Bismarck, my distant ancestors happily trotted off to register themselves as citizens. One of the things they volunteered was their religion: "Jewish".
The rest, as they say, is history. Never assume that government will remain even slightly benevolent for the duration of your lifetime, and for that of several generations of your descendants. In case you don't realize it, your DNA could be used to identify your children or even great-grandchildren, many years after your death.
Re: A bit off topic but...
The problem is of course, that most users will just click yes without actually reading the question, so what we need is another question to check you really meant to click yes. The problem is of course, that most users.....
The answer is to generate an informative message and at the end, something like "To confirm that you have read and understand the above, please type the first letter of the fourth word on the sixth line, followed by the fifth letter of the second word on the seventh line" (ideally, with random nths).
That will at least jog the user out of auto-click mode. The rest is down to whether he's got a brain to engage. If he's just a slightly higher-level automaton than the computer, there's nothing can be done about it. (Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is terminal).
You are just a simulation of a human brain in the aliens' computer. It monitors where you think you are looking and sends appropriate simulations of reality back to simulated optic nerves.
Same idea on a grander scale, and a bugger to disprove. Isn't Occam's Razon wonderful! Relax and watch ze blinkenlights.
Re: 35 years old
Your radio is in a moist oxidising atmosphere. Why do you think that things we want to last for a long time are vacuum-packed?
It will evaporate(*) well before eternity. It will probably have evaporated before it next encounters a solar system (unless they managed to aim it precisely at one of our nearest neighbours a mere handful of light-years away).
(*) most things have a vapour pressure greater than that of interstellar space. Also it's being bombarded by high-energy particles.
Re: It's somewhat sad...
There's a great difference between a species dying out due to a virulent disease and a species dying out because we killed it.
But we did kill this species, just less directly. We killed almost all of them. They bred back, but because the species had at one point been reduced to a small number of individuals, they all share a very restricted gene pool. Hence this cancer, which can infect all of them, and which may cause their extinction.
There may also be a wider lesson. Another species which came through a genetic choke point is our own. It's reckoned that at some point about 80,000 years ago, the entire population of homo sapiens was less than a thousand. We too are far more vulnerable to extinction by some new plague, than most other species.
Re: Reverse the polarity of the Neutron flow.
Unlocking our telomeres would be much more likely to increase the rate of cancers than giving us immortality.
More realistically, it might give most of us a healthy life extending to 100, maybe 120 years. How successfully depends on how many of the diseases and failings of old age are caused by the biological senescence mechanism, and now many by other causes such as accumulating cellular mutations.
Alzheimers is not a certainty. I remember interviews with Jeanne Calment (she lived to 122, despite smoking heavily all her life!) and Harry Patch (the last veteran of WW1). Both were of sound mind when their bodies quit on them. So are the majority of people who (mostly) die in their 70s, 80s and 90s from causes related directly or indirectly to cellular senescence.
Wrt cancer: as other causes of death become curable or treatable, its incidence increases. It's also more likely the older we are, because of accumulating cellular mutations. Personally I'd take an increased risk of eventually falling to cancer, than the near-inevitability of falling apart in my 80s or 90s when my body's self-repair mechanisms start to turn off.
Immortality is not even conceptually attractive. However, a few more decades of reasonably enjoyable life most certainly is.
I've always wondered why medical implants can't be recharged by simple mains-frequency inductive coupling. An iron-cored coil connected to a rectifier inside the patient (sealed in appropriate non-metallic bio-compatible material). To recharge, strap a bigger mains-activated coil on the outside of the body.
Ancient technology, but it's how my electric toothbrush is recharged. Why haven't medical devices used it for decades?
However.... I must agree that the forced indentation is a REALLY poor design decision. I know why Guido did it - to force a common format on everyones code. But what it has resulted in is people accidentally deleting some whitespace (easy if some idiot has only used 1 or 2 spaces) moving an end of block line outside of the block it was in but leaving a program that still apparently runs but now has a potentially serious bug.
But it's just as easy to make mistakes with curly brackets or the dangling "else" in C or similar languages! And worse, you don't know where you should be looking for the bug. The curly brackets may not be where you expect them in your coding style. If it's an editor flub, they may not be where anyone expects them in any widely used coding style.
I didn't like Python indentation-as-syntax when I first met it. The dislike lasted for a few hours, acceptance lasted the next couple of days, and then it blossomed into love.
A winner of a name?
I've just realized, if my proposed global low-voltage cabling ever comes about, the cables should of course be called LOVE cables. LOw Voltage Electrical. Beats IEC C13 (aka "kettle flex" -- inaccurately, kettles use C15)
Longer USB cables = FAIL
The maximum length of a USB2 cable is 2 meters. Period. (You might find a longer one on sale, but it's out of spec and may cause data corruption or unreliability). You can reach 4 meters by employing two cables and a hub. Above that you need an expensive USB to Ethernet (well, RJ45-Cat5e-cabled something) to USB bridge.
WHY there is such a stupid maximum length, I have no idea. Anyone at Intel reading this? (I think it was Intel whio invented USB). Anyway, we're stuck with it.
As for power bricks, there's a desperate need for a single global standard low-voltage power source with a standard connector that everything can be expected to run off. Then, hotels, business premises and even homes could be constructed with it built into the walls, and in the meantime any adapter would power any standard-compliant thingy. How about 12V nominal (up to 15V allowed, for automotive use), current-limited to 3A (36W, enough to fire up a 3.5" disk drive). DC-DC power conversion is no big deal these days.
Good job Hague, Ecuador has now called your bluff. What are you gonna do now?
Nothing in the short term would be a good idea. Personally I'd quietly offer to do nothing for as long as they do nothing in support of the Argies w.r.t. the Falklands ... OK, assume they say no to that by word or deed.
Long-term, he could find another building that's superior to the current Ecuadorian embassy, and tell Ecuador that he requires them to move to the new embassy within (say) a year. During the transition both buildings would have the status of embassies, and all usual privileges will be maintained for diplomats and diplomatic bags. Removal costs would all be footed by the UK government.
Assange is not an Ecuadorian citizen, let alone a diplomat, so a year later we'd have him without setting a disastrous precedent for diplomats elsewhere. (There surely must be a precedent for an embassy being relocated at the request of the host nation, with reasonable notice? For example, if the building is blocking a major infrastructure development? )
Re: Getting him out
The only thing which bothers me is that neither the UK nor the Swedish government has completely nixed his assertion that the rape charge is a subtext for passing him on to the USA.
I'd urge Sweden to state that after he is acquitted, or after he serves his sentence in Sweden if he's found guilty, then he'll be allowed unconditional free passage to anywhere in the world that will have him. If he won't voluntarily return to Sweden after that assurance, the conclusion is obvious, and Ecuador would be best advised to throw him out of their embassy into the hands of the UK police.
I've heard that such an assurance is already implicit under EU extradition law, but why not make it explicit? I'm no lawyer so I'm somewhat unconvinced by the former, but would be completely happy with an explicit assurance by the Swedish government. Anyway, why not make explicit what they know to be implied?
I forsee a problem
We may think it's from the Dr. Who mythos, but what does it think?
I expect these things will be claiming assylum at wherever the embassy of Biroid life-forms may be. Which means as far as us humans are concerned, it'll be here today and inexplicably gone tomorrow.
Re: Methane and Global warming
Better then to figure out how to keep the temperature up when the gradual cooling sets in.
Methinks that's a long-term problem, after dealing with the runaway thawing of the arctic and consequent temperature and sea-level rises. (The cooling after that is inevitable, once there's no longer any supply of short-lived methane into the atmosphere from thawing permafrost. The methane converts to CO2, and plants once again start trapping the CO2, and the ice once again starts to creep down from the pole, once again locking up the methane from decomposing vegetation as methane hydrates ... repeat many times, until continental drift does away with the Arctic ocean.)
Re: So to recapitulate...
Who's the asshat that thought of this then ?
Got a better idea? If not, the choice is to punt the problem into the future without destroying any data, or to give up and hire some skips.
Re: 11 Pb?
I did wonder what it all was. Geophysical survey data explains it. You could compress it heavily, but you'd probably end up throwing away the information that future interpretation exercises might need!
Nevertheless, I wonder if anyone investigated the possibility of lossless compression of geophysical datasets, on the fly between the old and new archives? (I don't mean of a single data stream, I mean by removing redundancy from outputs of multiple sensors and shots in a single seismic run).
Methane and Global warming
Methane is anout 15 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, true, but it has a short half-life in the atmosphere (about 10 years from memory). It gets broken down by UV and recombines with oxygen as CO2 and water. Incidentally water vapour is an even more potent greenhouse gas than methane, but the atmosphere is naturally pretty much saturated with the stuff. If it weren't for global warming caused by water vapour, the planet would mostly be too cold for life.
Anyway: methane does not accumulate long-term in the atmosphere, whereas CO2 (probably) does. Which is why the focus is on the CO2.
There IS a clear and present danger of a runaway warming event caused by the thawing of methane hydrates of natural orogin currently trapped in permafrost across the world's Northern tundras. If the permafrost thaws, lots of methane is released, causing increased global temperatures, causing more thawing and more methane. A positive feedback loop until all the arctic has thawed. The fossil record shows that this has happened several times in recent geological time, without human causation. A very sudden thaw, followed by a gradual cooling. To my mind, this is the key reason why we should be VERY bothered about human CO2 emissions.
Re: Why Hydrogen instead of methane?
Actually Methane is already out there. Cars can be converted to run on CNG (compressed natural gas) as well as LPG (Liquid petroleum gas, better remembered as low pressure gas).
The problem is that to get enough range out of a reasonably sized tank, a very high pressure is needed. The potential for explosions if the tank is badly maintained is high (far higher than for a tank of gasoline). Also refilling is not nearly as simple as pumping a liquid, or plugging in an electric cable (and not as fast as the former, though faster than recharging a battery).
For these reasons the general public are not in general offered CNG vehicles. You'll find it used for running taxis and public transport in some cities. If oil runs out and gas (shale gas) does not, that might yet change.
Well worth pointing out that the Hindenburg was actually a good demonstration of the relative safety of Hydrogen! The majority of its passengers survived the disaster. Those that didn't mostly jumped from too great a height or were crushed by falling structural components. It was the aluminium-paint skin that started the disaster, and the hydrogen burned harmlessly up into the sky, being so much lighter than air.
Re: True Cost/Efficiency
...which means you need to invent a solar cell that's better than 15% efficient, which means -- you guessed it -- back to the drawing board!
Completely wrong. For solar electricity, the energy source is inexhaustible in human terms and has zero cost. It beomes a matter of economics: the cost of making solar cells and the cost of the real estate on which you put them. At present the real estate cost is close to zero (no-one much wants the vast tracts of near-lifeless desert that exist) but the cost of the solar cells is rather high compared to the cost of generating the same electricity from fossil fuels.
Raising the efficiency of the solar cells is one way to improve this. Making them much more cheaply is another. If we could make a plastic sheet that generated electricity as cheaply as we make polythene sheets, it would not need to be even 5% efficient to revolutionise the world.
(Nature did this a long time ago. It's called a plant. Conversion efficiency of solar energy to hydrocarbons rarely better than 1%, but a very low production cost in human terms because to a large extent, they grow themselves into useful products, and make their own seeds. If only they didn't need so much water to grow! )
Re: "can soak up so much of the stuff ..."
i can't see how you can adsorb a material to a higher density than a bulk liquid.
By rearranging things chemically so that the density of hydrogen atoms loosely bound to some carrier compound is greater than the density of hydrogen molecules in liquid hydrogen. It's akin to the old party trick of pouring a pint of water into a pint glass already full of sawdust. It all goes in! (Water packs more tightly around just about anything, than the dynamicall changing open structures in liquid water).
The density of liquid hydrogen is an extraordinarily low 0.07 (water is 1.0) so there's a lot of scope for it to pack down into the interstices of open crystal structures. That's the problem with storing hydrogen at high pressure in metal tanks. It does pack down into the interstices in the metal crystals, and as this happens, the metal becomes progressively embrittled.
(Source for 0.07 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_hydrogen corroborated elsewhere by Google. That's quite a lot less than 1/4 the density of petrol. More like 1/12 working from memory)
Re: I would love to have LASIK
NO! look up "common mode failure". Examples: incompetent surgeon /operator, incorrectly calibrated LASIK equipment, idiosyncratic (unusual, bad) reaction to the surgery in one particular patient (ie you). Any of these could cause BOTH your eyes to be knackered if you have the procedure performed on both eyes at once.
Same reason airlines NEVER service both engines on a twin-jet at the same time!
Re: I would love to have LASIK
The question should be whether your life is really seriously impaired without LASIK? If spectacles are able to correct one's vision defect, then LASIK is a risk being taken for little reason beyond convenience or vanity. If it goes wrong (which sometimes it does) one is irreversibly worse off, and spectacles then won't help.
The thought of someone risking both eyes at once is quite incredible. Have one done, and wait until one can judge the short-term results before risking the other one! Having one eye irreversibly screwed up is bad, being functionally blinded is far, far worse.
Re: LASIK night-vision loss
Night vision loss - I'd guess that what people notice is increased scattering of bright light, such as oncoming headlights, by the scar tissue. Light scattered into the dark parts of your visual field means that the subtle gradations of dark are washed out by the "noise".
Everyone's dark vision deteriorates with age, but an optician may point out that you have a "pre-cataract". That's clouding of the natural lens in the eye, which will lead to a cataract but which at present is only hurting one's night-driving vision. Hard question: give up night driving, or pay for and risk a cataract operation a decade before the cataract will be causing everyday vision problems?
I also wonder whether some people who try LASIK to correct severe lens defects which spectacles can't properly address, might be better treated with a full cataract operation to replace the faulty natural lens in their eye? The cataract lens-implant operation has an extremely high success rate and leaves one with vision that's in some ways more perfect than nature. I guess the risk of losing the eye altogether is higher for cataract surgery, though the risk of being left with vision that's worse after the procedure than before is surely higher with LASIK. And one does have two eyes .... But there again, eye lens implants haven't yet been tested for a full lifetime. People who have lens implants are usually elderly, for whom a lifetime is unlikely to exceed 20 years (and the implants have now been well-tested over that timescale).
Re: Sunk cost
Concorde would have been out of service sooner or later because of the airframes wearing out (metal fatigue) and no production line for replacement Concordes. Don't blame BA alone. All the world's airlines decided Concorde's fate by not buying into the supersonic aviation concept. Maybe supersonic passenger transport might someday be economically viable, but Concorde's worst flaw was that it could not bridge the Pacific ocean.
I've always wondered, was Concorde really just a state-sponsored civilian air transport project ? Or was the real purpose to develop technology for supersonic bombers, that was rendered pointless by accurately targeted ICBMs?
Re: Sunk cost
The semi-intelligent life would survive an unexpected belch from old Sol, unless it was on a scale that hasn't happened since life was walking on dry land. Our civilisation might not ... but we'd probably find a way back within the next hundred thousand years or so.
Probably ditto with respect to extinction-level meteor impacts. The dinosaurs died out because they were big and dumb and didn't shelter in holes or cache food. (The mammals did. The birds or flying dinosaurs substituted long-range mobility for hiding in a hole).
We can't do anything about Sol. Since we might do something about meteors, maybe we should. On the other hand, we've scanned the skies and made sure that there aren't any extinction-level impacts coming from objects orbiting the inner solar system during the next few decades, and we would notice them coming with enough time to react. Probably.
Re: @Nigel 11
The effects of drugs taken for a short time are almost certainly reversible, even if your body reacts badly. The adverse effects of long-term use of Ibuprofen are well-known, starting with increased risk of heart attacks (read the leaflet in the packet). It's a long-term effect, caused by the drug interfering with your body's self-repair mechanisms. Short-term (for a few days), it's a negligible risk.
Surgery is almost by definition irreversible. Contact lenses are equivalent to long-term drug usage, and I would also counsel avoiding elective use of a drug therapy for the rest of one's life if the treated condition isn't life-threatening or seriously debilitating.
I have in fact made that choice with respect to life-long use of anti-gout medication (no thanks). I prefer to put up with a few hours of extreme pain in my big toe maybe once a year, and treat that with diclofenac (a more powerful version of ibuprofen) for about a week when it happens. Someone suffering from gout more severely would doubtless choose otherwise, as I will if the attacks become frequent, or develop into chronic gouty arthritis, or spread to my major joints.
Don't consider ANY elective surgery until they can point at a statistically valid number of guinea-pigs, sorry people, who have lived to a ripe old age with no undesirable side-effects. The medical history books are full of treatments that looked like a good idea at the time, but proved to be a long-term disaster.
I won't even consider contact lenses. It'll be another couple of decades before there are ninety-year-olds who were wearing them since their twenties. Does vanity or slight convenience justify even the slightest increased risk of losing your sight in your old age?
(It is of course different if the surgery is to address a life-threatening or seriously life-limiting problem.)
Re: Oh wow
Yes, for certain restricted values of "internet", "know" and "people".
Re: The Saudis have a better moral compass
a pit of amorality and cluelessness
Completely valid righteous indignation, completely wrong argument. They have such a strong view on moral standards they they'll force children to be burned to death rather than see them break the moral code even in the most desperate of circumstances. It's not amorality, it's the even worse sort of dogmatic insanity at the complete other end of the spectrum. Give me a choice between someone with no moral compass and someone whose moral compass is glued immovably in a particular direction, and I'll unhesitatingly choose the former!
Re: so-called “dot-brand” or “single-registrant” gTLD
I still can't understand the rationale behind paying big bucks for these TLDs. Why is .virgin better than .virgin.com or .virgin.co.uk? Do people really go domain-name guessing, rather than putting what they want into a Google (or other) search box? Heck, if they use IE, there's only the one box in any case.
Or is that the reason? Buy the .baby TLD and make it impossible for a not-very-smart mother-to-be to search for "Baby" using IE?
Re: All big companies HAVE to do this
A company is obliged to do this. Its directors are required to seek to maximise the return for its shareholders. If they fail to take advantage of obviously legal opportunities to save tax, they could be sued by their shareholders!
As someone said above, operating throughout the EU out of Eire (lowest corporation tax) is pretty much a definition of what the EU is for!
The government should start by changing company law so that a company is no longer obliged to minimise tax paid (and work through diplomatic channels to try to get that change made in all developed economies). Then, maybe Google would do the right thing rather than the legal thing.
Re: @AC 01:23
> "has anyone interfered with your luggage"?
I use a (coloured and marked) cable-tie so that I can answer that one! It's also a mild disincentive to light-fingered security staff. It doesn't stop security looking inside if they want to (and they don't have to wreck my luggage to do so) but a thief will know for sure that I will notice the intrusion at the baggage claim.
But is there such a thing as a drinkable high explosive? I don't believe so.
I still think that they could safely allow a bottle of water (say up to two litres) provided the passenger takes a drink from it at the security checkpoint. The reason they don't has everything to do with increasing the profits of the air-side vending outlets, and nothing to do with security.
Re: Very strange behaviour indeed
You don't get my point. The association that has been created in my head between Dvorak's music and Hovis bread is to the irrevocable detriment of the music and (part of) its audience. In my opinion it's like letting a graffiti vandal tag a sublime painting. It is something that the creator of that work of art has a legitimate right to refuse in his will. I've no idea how Dvorak would see it, but I know that's how I'd see it!
The law permits a creator of intellectual property to leave it/them to a literary executor, who/which may be bound by the creator's wishes provided those wishes are legal. I don't know if it's ever been tested in a court, but I don't see anything obviously contrary to public policy in refusing permission for use of music in advertising until the copyright expires (assuming he owns the copyright at death). He's allowed to make that distinction and refusal in life, so why not make his intellectual property subject to that same condition after death?
Unfortunately the one thing that you do not own in law, and possibly even by definition, is your own body after its life is extinct.
There are good public-health reasons for this, as well as theological ones. Your body therefore belongs to your executors as soon as life is pronounced extinct (without waiting for probate!), and they are responsible for its safe disposal in accordance with the laws governing such.
This unfortunate chap obviously chose the wrong executors (and maybe the wrong jurisdiction to die under).
Re: Very strange behaviour indeed
His specific anti advertising hissy fit is a logical disconnect.
If you have a soul that responds to music, it most certainly is not.
For example, the second movement of Dvorak's "New World" symphony is one of the most sublime musical creations of all time. Unfortunately some soul-dead advertising agency used it to advertise Hovis bread, and now I can no longer listen to it without momentarily wincing at the association. Which incidentally, has negative value for Hovis, because I always buy some other make of bread whenever I have a choice!
(It could have been worse. They might have associated the music with something I really detested. Be thankful for small mercies).
Re: Don't Worry
If you're serious, you'd have to leave your artistic or intellectual property rights to a foundation which can continue in perpetuity, but which cannot have its founding purposes overturned. You'd need to take expert legal advice on which jurisdiction to create this foundation under!
That's what the FSF is for, with respect to free software. Copyleft is also capable of application to music, literature, etc. "You're licensed to use it subject to these terms. If you reject these terms, you have no license to use it at all" (You can ask, but you won't get special terms).
The law won't allow you to make stipulations that are clearly illegal or contrary to the public good. An argument might be made that freedon to advertise is a public good, but advertising using a particular work against its author's and its owner's specific desire when there are plenty of other musical works to choose from, would be a bit of a stretch!
Why bother? Don't forget the cost penalty of every extra gram that you send to another planet. If it tips past the point of no recovery on a mission, it's doomed anyway, engine on or engine off.
And don't say that they could have put a shutoff valve in for terrestrial testing and later removed it for space missions. It's possible that it might be working only because of the presence of an open valve instead of an unadorned pipe.
When Intel clones a working fab, they clone *everything*. No matter how much of a bodge it looks (and in the first place probably was), that comical tangle of plumbing may be an essential part of the reason it's working. It's far too expensive to do an experiment to find out that it wasn't ... or was.
Luckily back when we lived in caves, there were people who didn't think that playing with fire was a complete waste of time, likely to get people burned or worse. Because otherwise, we'd still be living in caves.
For a more recent example of curiosity and its delayed value, consider the field effect transistor which today lies at the heart of virtually all micro-electronics. The underlying physics was studied in the 1930s, and the transistor predicted as a theoretical possibility decades before the technology existed to make one (let alone two billion of them on a single chip).
Anyone remember the TV series "21st century jet" which followed the Boeing 777 from design to first flight? the bit I remember most was the destructive testing of its wings. (Clamp plane to the floor, put hydraulic jacks under wing-tips, watch the strain guages, jack up until the wings break.. Best explosives-free explosion I can recall, and very reassuiring that they're about 10% stronger than the designers calculated).
Checking that it really could stop on brakes only during a worst-case aborted take-off was also fun (perhaps less so for the pilot). The brake disks were literally white hot when it stopped, but nothing caught fire.
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Justin Bieber BEGGED for a $200k RIM JOB – and got REJECTED
- Review Bigger on the inside: WD’s Tardis-like Black² Dual Drive laptop disk
- Inside Steve Ballmer’s fondleslab rear-guard action