Posts posted by insane_alien
no it's not that linux is more secure.As there are more number of windows users they are attacked mostly then compared to linux users.
Hackers generally concentrate on masses then few
but linux computers tend to be jucier targets for hacking. servers and such while windows tends to be low value targets such as home computers.0
It seems like TYT is objecting more to the hypocrisy of being pro-vietnam when it was going on but not actually doing anything about it than the fact he dodged the draft.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons why people would dodge the draft that don't make them bad people. But his reasons are a bit weak. He's saying 'Oh I wanted to go, but my hands were tied' Basically, he's lying about what he really thought about the war. I think if he'd just said 'yeah, i didn't want to go to war' then TYT wouldn't have attacked him on it because it's the truth. Of course, that would be political suicide among the voters.
but anyway, from looking at the news from the US, there seems to be plenty of reasons not to vote republican other than romney didn't want to go to vietnam. republicans seem crazy and almost clownish from here.2
it doesn't look like the background is moving.
it looks to me like we have a small, rounded high altitude cloud (hence the brightness) with some low altitude fast moving clouds much much closer to the camera. It also looks like there is hefty zoom going on.
So say when orange is tasted for the first time, where did it hire the new sensation of its taste. Since tasting something only send electrical signal to the brain.
the sensation is the patterns of signals from the tastebuds. If it is the first time then there won't be any memory associated but a memory will be created. just a simple association 'when i eat this fruit, this is the sensation i get' which would be reinforced by further tasting.0
basically, when you smell an orange, somechemical receptors in your nose activate and start sending electrical signals to your brain. your brain interprets the signature of the impulses as that of the smell of oranges (or rather it interprets it as a sensation which has memory links to the smell of an orange).
if you sent the same signals directly into the olfactory nerves then you would smell orange without there being any orange present.
all sensory organs work the same way. some receptors either activate or deactivate and the pattern of activation is interpreted by the brain to produce sensation and usually calls up memories associated with them to allow identification.0
The only way we can make a wise decision about anything is if it is an INFORMED decision. That means we need to understand what actually happens in the universe and the relationships involved.
With the advent of petascale super computing I think we'll see a lot of advancement on the relationship side of things. Forecast simulations of the effects of introducing a new law etc. that will lead to more informed decisions.3
a molecule has no memory, so as long as the atoms are in the right configuration it is impossible to tell whether the molecule came from a biological or synthetic source.
of course, if we are considering bought chemical then it IS often possible to tell. The biological origin stuff tends to have a lot more contamination than the synthetic stuff. Please note, contaminant in this case means 'anything other than the desired substance', not necessarily harmful'1
Great Vid Captain. Fascinating how the base cut the can in half. Was there a scratch which started the reaction at that halfway point and the fault travelled round with the exposed metal edge - or was there something about the base/air interface, ie the liquids surface, that meant the reaction was more violent there?
its probably just that below the waterline (baseline? ) the sodium hydroxide had ate through enough of the aluminium that it could no longer support its own weight.0
woo the wild number of hypotheses about the universe has been drastically reduced.
still loads of them left. now we can concentrate on finding out the properties of this particle and the consequences it has for theory.0
How can the core of Earth ever lose all its' heat. Doesn't the pressure of gravity constantly create heat?
This is a common misconception. It will only get hotter if it is constantly moved to a greater state of compression. if you stop the compression, say by the core material being as squashed as possible by the mass above it, then there is no more energy going into the system to make it hotter. if the system is not thermally isolated (the core of the earth isn't) then the thermal energy will dissipate away.0
It depends on exactly how close you want the earth to get to equilibrium. and if effects such as proton decay exist.
well, the longest known halflife is Tellurium-128 with 2.2septillion years (2.2*1024 years) so to get rid of all of it your looking at something like 70 septillion years before all heat sources disappear although proton decay is estimated to be ~1030 years and could keep the earth at around 1K
you could be looking at something truely massive like ~1035 because with proton decay, you'll get beta decays of the excess neutrons. the earth would just evaporate away in a cloud of gamma rays and then it wouldn't have a temperature.
but really, it all depends on how close to absolute zero is 'close enough'0
It would achieve about 10-100 kelvins in 102 days or something as that.
Only for the surface, but I think it'd take a whole lot longer than that.
Temperatures would plunge fastest over continents with freezing conditions in only a few days temps at the coast would be fairly stable until the oceans froze over. This could take a month or so but once a thin layer of ice has formed, the process will accelerate again as the oceans heat reservoir is cut off.
As the earth cools down and all water and CO2 precipitates out of the atmosphere, the rate of cooling will again slow down. Not only because the radiative losses depend on T4 but because the major source of heat will be deep geological heat. simple conduction through the crust. It will be enough to stop the atmosphere precipitating as it is sufficient to maintain a ~90K surface temperature (although the atmosphere may be able to keep it warmer than this.)
The geological heat is primarily from radioactivity K-40 is an important isotope. it has a half life of 1.25 Ga (billion years) so complete cooling is going to take longer than that. After about a billion years, then you might see the atmosphere start precipitating leaving only trace quantities of hydrogen and helium as a tenuous atmosphere (it won't escape like it currently does as it will be too cold) Infact, the longer we go on the thicker the atmosphere is likely to become again. as more and more isotopes decay, the helium will eventually diffuse to the surface. even if we leave it long enough that everything has decayed and all geological temperatures have reached <1K we will still have a thin helium atmosphere and helium oceans. not likely to be rivers though as everything will be at a standstill.0
It would have to form a double bond, that is a clue.
no it wouldn't.
Anyway, the H4O2+ ion is less stable than the H3O+ ion.
you could concievably get it to form but it would require an abundance of H3O+ ions likely, nothing but. but to keep the thing electrically neutral you'll need negative ions. basically, it'll decompose to a whole lot of water first.0
I remember watching rockets launch on TV and noticing that the direction the rockets' nozzles were under servo control. Perhaps there are electronics you could adapt for this purpose?
That's called 'gimbaling'
There is also the option of having fins in your rocket exhaust, sure you lose some of the the power but it allows controllable flight in vaccum and atmosphere (atmosphere only while rocket is firing) without RCS rockets.0
Well, I think its safe to say the origins of pyramidal structures went even before the ancient Egyptian culture. Arguably, they could have mastered the technique of pyramidal building before their empire had even formed. Secondly, it was not unheard of for pharaoh's to see their predocessors as sacred... nor is it unheard of that certain pharaoh's ignored ''old ways of things'' and tried to out do them.
that'll be a 'no' then?0
I'm just saying we don't know enough to make any ''assertions''. They may have started off very grand, then over a few hundred years piped down on their size and quality to reserve the heritage of their ancestors... then later a more frivolous and egotistic pharaoh came along and decided to out do them, making the later, |but yonger models| look primitive.
do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?
without evidence it gets cut off by occams razor.0
No actually we don't. If we are basing this on Egyptian culture, we have only seen a small percentage of all the pyramids. I showed you this. How can you base an ''earlier'' picture on an incomplete set of information?
the link you gave was for 17 previously undiscovered pyramids. as this was the first survey, lets be generous and say there are 30 more for 47 undiscovered pyramids.
the number of pyramids examined (not counting the above mentioned) = 138 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids )
so of a total (est.) 185 pyramids, we have sampled 138. 74.6% sampling is plenty good enough and definitely not a small percentage. Even if there were 1000 pyramids undiscovered, 138 is a decent sample size.
we have a broad range in our sample too. covering upper and lower kingdoms and millenia of development.
again, unless we discover a pyramid thats out of place in the developmental timelines then there is NOTHING to suggest external help.0
We actually don't know if they started off small and shoddy. State of the art technology using infra red has mapped out an entire civilization of Egypt - over 90% more than what we realized to be there in the first place and tens of tens of more pyramids have been discovered lurking under the hot sands of the desert.
actually we do. All the early pyramids observed are of poorer build quality and much simpler in design than later pyramids. they also tend to be smaller. we also see mistakes in the construction of early pyramids (such as making them large with too steep an angle) that are not repeated in later constructions.
The point is we see a progression in pyramid architecture from simple piles of rock up to the great pyramid's that are icons for ancient egypt even to this day. EXACTLY the kind of thing you would expect to see humans do on working up to great achievements like the great pyramid. case and point, rockets. a future historian looking back would look at the saturn rockets (which are referenced a lot) and go 'golly thats an awful complex rocket, they must have had help with that' and would continue thinking that if they didn't also look at its predecessors, jupiter, atlas, redstone, etc. etc.
looking at the great pyramid in isolation also makes you think 'golly thats an awful big pyramid, they must have had help with that' until you look at other pyramids and realise that there was a slow progression of talent.
yes there are pyramids we haven't observed, but unless they buck the trend seen in the rest of them (and there is no evidence to think that they will) then there isn't much to say.
if we un earth a new pyramid and it has complex construction using late pyramid building techniques but is older than the rest of them, THEN you'll have something to jump on. until then, occams razor suggests it was humans all the way.
the only reason pyramid building fell out of knowledge is because nobody else could afford, or wanted to devote so many resources to building a pile of rocks.1
inkscape is a FOSS vector image maker. you can get .dxf plugins for that. I use it at work for a similar purpose.0
Like once when i was taking a walk in mumbai in 2001, i had seen a 'Bowling arena' and when i again came after a year to that place, it was not there. As if it occurred in a different time zone accessible only by some people.
buildings get torn down in mumbai as well you know.0
it doesn't have more mass (it has less as the source star sheds a lot of matter in creating a blackhole.)
The big difference is a blackhole is incredibly small compared to the source star.
for instance, to turn the sun into a blackhole you'd need to squash it into a sphere only 6km in diameter.0
just to point out, i said compounds such as hydrogen and carbon, i should have said elements such as hydrogen and carbon.
gotta admit when you're wrong. otherwise you'll never learn anything new that is also true.0
Yeah I'd say so, also there is an extremely large amount of comets an meteors there, but the space is so vast, they are so spread out, the probability of a GRB hitting one is extremely low. Take the asteroid belt, it is much denser than the Oort cloud (AFAIK) but even there the asteroids are really spread out, if you flew through if, the chance of hitting an asteroid is extremely low.
The gamma ray burst will hit ALL of them if it is observable from earth. the only problem is it will also hit all the space in between them as well.0
Iron ore isn't iron oxide, the oxygen could come from many different places.
magnetite is Fe3O4
Other ores also contain oxygen but also other compounds like carbon and hydrogen.
find an empty can, put some grinding media in it an rotate by hand would be the cheapest way.