Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:WTF AM I DOING HERE! (Score 1) 109

by Demena (#49339807) Attached to: New Alzheimer's Treatment Fully Restores Memory Function For Mice

Well, I understood the thread to be about pr0n and other things. More particularly, it was about how you would recover your digital property if you were to lose and partly recover your memory.

I have nothing on any hard disk nor any memory stick (or its ilk) that I am ashamed of. I am a human being (I figured that out long ago) and not perfect. But I actually do not have anything I feel I need to hide. My kids figured out my fetishes in their teens, nothing to hide there. I would say that there would be more people in my situation than yours. Anyway it is irrelevant.

The point that you are failing to see is that setting up a shared secret is trivial, even if it is unknown to the parties that they have it. And that is the only point I have to make.

Comment: Re:WTF AM I DOING HERE! (Score 1) 109

by Demena (#49332983) Attached to: New Alzheimer's Treatment Fully Restores Memory Function For Mice

Well, the only thing I have that might remotely be classified as pr0n would be my personal sketches as I like to draw nudes. There are no other images. Since they are my personal artistic output they might have some value to my family and perhaps not. None are obscene anyway.

But the split/shared secret is easy to set up. Trivial in fact. I am not sure why you think it is "extensive".

Comment: Re:This sucks. (Score 1) 299

by Demena (#49255325) Attached to: Sir Terry Pratchett Succumbs To "the Embuggerance," Aged 66

Bzzzt! The people around you, the people you are most likely to meet carry many of the same genes you do. It is not as black and white as you claim. The notion you put forward is, to the best of my knowledge, counter to current theory.

Bzzz! Again. Many cultures putlet. I may be sixty-five but that makes what life I have left even more valuable to me. Of course it may mean nothing to you.

My response to your third paragraph is an an uncategorised "it depends". John Donne may have been a god-botherer but he had it right when he said that no man was an island. There are always other people involved. I have lost a lot of friends to a permanent solution to a temporary problem. And problems people think are permanent are not always so. While I do agree with the right to die there has to be a lot more to it than someone saying "I'm done". It cannot be unregulated.

Comment: Re: It should stand two degrees, for sure! (Score 2) 253

by Demena (#49164235) Attached to: 20-Year-Old Military Weather Satellite Explodes In Orbit

Atmospheric diffraction used to be far more serious on earthly telescopes than it is now due to correction mechanisms and software. The flickering of stars due to atmospheric vagaries can be almost entirely eliminated. You want to bet on the fact that a lot of money has not been put into making that go the other way?

Atmospheric attenuation should not be a big issue. The point of having a ground based laser system is that you can pump a lot of power into either a flash strike or a persistent strike. Orbit to orbit? How much power can a satellite pack? I honestly do not know.

However, as we do not know it was a laser it is moot at this point.

Comment: Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! (Score 1) 253

by Demena (#49164113) Attached to: 20-Year-Old Military Weather Satellite Explodes In Orbit

I do not know. I am not putting forward any theory. Actually, reading back, I did. But I mentioned it only as a possibility. I am certainly not wedded to it

Whatever caused it caused it. That is the only thing I am certain of. People seem to think I favour a particular theory. I do not, Sorry to give any other impression.

Comment: Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! (Score 1) 253

by Demena (#49162843) Attached to: 20-Year-Old Military Weather Satellite Explodes In Orbit

Perhaps, perhaps not. An active working public satellite, well I doubt it. An old worthless, past its busby date satellite, maybe.

But there are lots of candidates besides China.

But I am not making a claim for either cause or villain. We do not know enough and probably never will.

Comment: Re:Okay, didn't want to go here but... (Score 1) 253

by Demena (#49161905) Attached to: 20-Year-Old Military Weather Satellite Explodes In Orbit

This was a discussion about the use of Occam's Razor. How is your reply relevant?

There is no claim from me that it was or was not at battery failure, that it was or was not an energy weapon.

But if were trying to send a message I would not be taking something out that was provocatively useful and expensive. That might get a reply that I don't want. You do not take out a person's (state, country, empire) assets, you demonstrate the capability to take them out. It is a good deal less provative and sends you message more clearly.

Comment: Okay, didn't want to go here but... (Score 2) 253

by Demena (#49161627) Attached to: 20-Year-Old Military Weather Satellite Explodes In Orbit

The principle of Occam's Razor is not "simplicity" vs. "complexity". It states not to multiply entities unnecessarily, but that does not equate to simplicity.

We have never seen a battery failure like this before (and there are very many of that type out there) so we are creating a new entity with introducing this type of battery failure to our list of known entities. That does not mean (under the principle of Occam's Razor) that it did not happen that way (battery failure) only that we should consider other possibilities that do not include introducing that entity.

Lasers, enemies, interest in dominance, all the other entities required for it to be an attack already exist as known entities. As such it is something to be examined not dismissed. Occam's Razor suggests that this latter hypothesis be examined prior to the former. And that is all it suggests.

Occam's Razor does not determine between simplicity and complexity. The simplest explanation for lightning is that "God did it". Our modern explanation for lightning is incredibly complex. Which do you think is accurate? Which one better satisfies Occam's Razor?

Given all the crap that is going down all over the place right now, someone making a point does not really require introducing anything new and doesn't seem unlikely. Nor does a simple battery failure seem unlikely. But Occam's Razor is not the tool to use here. If we try we wind up in the Procrustean Bed of refining our problem to suit one solution or the other.

Best wishes, sorry I am a bit Aspie here.

It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65)

Working...