Comment Re:Cutting edge news? (Score 0) 96
The event isn't until 2 days from now. That's ludicrous speed for /..
Yes and no-- Depends on what the ISS's orbit is. If it has a circumpolar orbit, (crosses the polar region), then it will pass through the magnetic field lines that funnel cosmic particles into the atmosphere that cause the northern lights. EG-- it would get beamed pretty intensely with concentrated cosmic particles.
If it does not have that kind of orbit, and instead stays around the equator, then no so much. Mostly radiation free, compared to outside the magnetosphere.
What we need to do, is send a lander to the moon loaded with some microbial and planktonic colonies, where it can get beamed by high intensity, raw solar wind radiation, (And more importantly, where we can keep close tabs on it easily) and measure how the colonies do over time.
Last I checked, we have pretty much definitively determined that the moon is devoid of native flora or fauna. "Contamination" of the moon is a silly prospect.
If we decide not to land the experiment ON the moon, we could just as easily place it in orbit around the moon, and still conduct the experiment. the moon just provides a nice stable gravity well to moor the experiment so we dont have to send oodles of fuel to keep station, which is conveniently close by, and outside the magnetosphere of the planet.
I am actually surprised that there are so few experiments geared at empirically testing terrestrial microorganisms against the "Inhospitable environment" of space.
I strongly suspect it has more to do with the politics of not having to contemplate panspermia as a probable/reasonable factor in scientific debate than anything else.
...Saleh and co do not claim that this kind of algorithm can take the place of an art historian. After all, the discovery of a link between paintings in this way is just the starting point for further research about an artist’s life and work.
That would work too, but getting your hands on CF cards is getting harder and harder, and so is the likelihood that end users will have a card reader capable of using them.
Chromebooks dont use CF.
This does throw a nasty little wrinkle in.
we would need a custom SD card ASIC that purposefully does not accept writes, and does not have any code inside its firmware to facilitate writes.
That's gonna make it significantly more expensive though.
there's a possible alternative though, but it still requires custom hardware fab. A filter sleeve.
It does a man-in-the-middle between the actual sdcard and the sdcard slot. it allows read requests through, but denies write packets. It instead lies, and says a write was denied, emulating the behavior of the write protect notch on the sdcard logically to the controller, while actively also prohibiting the write from getting through at all. The ideal form factor here is in the "SDHC to microSDHC adapter sleeve" format. Sits inside a real SDHC slot, accepts microSDHC, but strictly enforces write protection.
Really, revelations like this are all the more reason to run a fully rom based OS for anything touching the internet.
Before somebody says something absurd, this is basically what a thin client does anyway. The difference is that you keep the system image inside the thin client itself, rather than pulling it from the network. A modified chromebook would work just fine. An sdcard slot that is hardware designed to be electronically incapable of raising its line voltages to write-enable levels, while still being physically accessible by the owner, would round out the package for where to store the system image.
Everything else is stored exclusively in RAM, and blanks completely on power off.
If the user WANTS persistent data, they can use external media. it comes in quite acceptable sizes these days.
This could very easily be done with a chromebook with some simple modifications. Instead of doing google chrome, pack it with a squashfs knoppix image.
watch all the seditious cat videos you want.
There-in lies the rub.
Politicians are expert liars and manipulators. They have agendas. they arent always good, and almost always have some kind of barb in them. Positions of power attract those who hunger for power, and that hunger is insatiable.
What is "War for what I want" to the politician, he spins as "War to prevent $atrocity" to his citizenry.
As voltaire pointed out, those who believe absurdities, can be made to commit atrocities.
The absurdity is that there is a justification for war to begin with-- a "right reason." To the politician, that just means he needs to push that "right reason" button, and you will go to war for him, and he will get what he wants.
Be it "Spreading freedom" or "assisting a revolt" or whatever.
Think about what war actually *IS*.
"I disagree with you, so strongly, that I feel compelled to use lethal violence against you to either eliminate you, or force you to adopt my position in this argument."
When you look at war that way, all pretext of "right reasons" dissolves.
As I pointed out earlier, "War is necessary because war exists(elsewhere)!" is a tautology. That is what "Violence in the name of self-defense" is. "My violence is necessary because there is violence (elsewhere)!"
The issue, is that you have governments that dont know the meaning of a peaceful "no."
You know, like,
"Hey bro-- I see you have lots of untapped oil resources. Would you please make some backroom deals with me so I can get some of it real cheap? I'll give you all the stuff to get it out of the ground for a reasonable bait and switch arrangement..."
"no, your deal is clearly not in our best interests. Seek your oil elsewhere."
"Oh, sorry to hear you say that..." (Turns around, spreads propoganda in his own country to rile up the 'For the right reasons' crowd) "For FREEDOM!(tm)"
(censored)
[sounds of killing and horrors of war of scene]
[new scene, completely different person is now in charge of the other country.]
"Thanks so much for putting me in power! Now, how can I help you?"
"yes, about that oil...."
THIS is why we must not allow people to be moved by speeches about "right reasons" for war. There would never have been a war without them. That's the point.
The argument in favor of 'For the right reasons' revolves around war being inevitable and necessary. It is a logical tautology.
"War is needed, because war exists(elsewhere)"
Little problem there, pal.
If EVERYONE did this, then there would be a scarce few idiots to join in behind dangerous, power-mad people, like the ones you mentioned.
Why? Because they would know that what that guy wanted, would lead to war, and know exactly what it is.
What REALLY contributes to those kinds of atrocities you cited, are people who think war is OK for "the right reasons".
Those people can be made to commit atrocities.
The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!
