Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Theory only works for perfect tidal locking (Score 1) 69

by American Patent Guy (#47425805) Attached to: Study: Why the Moon's Far Side Looks So Different

Let's take your laser measurements a do a little back-of-the-napkin calculations.

Four billion years is 4*10^9, your presumed period of tidal locking is 2*10^5; around 1000 such periods. I'll assume that the rotational rate of the Moon slows by 2 every such period, and I'll assume an original rotational rate of 1 day (as no one knows what that original rate was). Using those assumptions, the residual rotational motion of the Moon today would be 1/(2^1000)th of its original rate, which is about 1/(10^300) which would give it a present rotational period of about 10^297 years (a really big number). That is well beyond the capability of measurement using anything available.

You can't have it both ways: either the rotation of the moon is slowing, or it's not. I believe that I've shown that what the Moon is presently doing today is of no relevance to proving this theory. Try again...

I'd like to see this evidence used to show the composition of the Moon. I understood that it was from modeling the heat radiation of the Moon. I don't think your evidence exists.

Comment: Re:Maybe because normal humans can't code (Score 1) 536

by bluefoxlucid (#47425579) Attached to: Normal Humans Effectively Excluded From Developing Software

What? This is bullshit, dude. Programming isn't a layer on top the physical world of spatial relationships; it's a layer on top the physical world of discrete, numeric algorithms.

In the real world, you have analogue power levels--voltage, current. Then, we build digital circuitry, such that being about 2.8-3.8V from ground state is "3.3V" or "ON", and being below that is "OFF"; being above that is "HALT, CATCH FIRE". This is a purely numerical behavior: the variations in the real world do not apply to digital circuitry.

On top of that, you build a set of operational codes to manipulate states, i.e. assembly. You also build programming languages such as C, Python, and so on, which turn complex algorithms into a static analysis tree, optimize the tree, and then convert that into optimal procedural operational codes.

The best we have for programming is object orientation, which takes a lot of procedural stuff for repeated modules away; but then you need to build the procedural framework to use those objects, as well as the discrete procedural behavior of the object. You're reducing complex procedural code down to a limited interface so that you can write other complex procedural code to handle that, thus reducing the amount of complex procedural shit you have to think about interacting with other complex procedural shit.

You can't program a computer by putting a ball on top a stick. Computers need programming in terms of what is absolutely understood and non-ambiguous.

Comment: Re:That is not how conspiracy theories work. (Score 1) 365

by Reziac (#47425359) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

"I don't claim Obama is not an American. I'm just saying that the White House, for reasons of its own, has put up a faked document."

That's pretty much my view. I don't know one way or the other what his legal status is, tho I know of no reason to disbelieve the Hawaii statement of information accuracy. What we do have is an image that was unquestionably altered (as anyone with experience editing compressed or layered images could instantly see), rather than a pristine copy. I lost interest after that and if anything else came to light, it's missed me.

And the one big reason it matters is because you can't prosecute a non-citizen for treason, in the event.

As to the rest of this thread, looks like you've encountered the slashdot equivalent of the UFF. :(

Comment: Re:they don't want to destory it (Score 1) 115

by Reziac (#47425189) Attached to: A Box of Forgotten Smallpox Vials Was Just Found In an FDA Closet

The trouble is, we may in the future discover that the sequenced DNA does not suffice. Or that there's an error. If we don't have reference material, we can't fix any such errors, or even discover them in the first place.

This is kinda like deciding a project is no longer needed, so instead of archiving it, you compile one last binary, then destroy all the source code.

Comment: Re:Australian Wheel Patent (Score 1) 35

On closer inspection the Australian patent that was granted is less absurd than it seems, as it was more of a quasi-patent:

Innovation patents last for a maximum of 8 years, whereas standard patents last for maximum of 20 years

... which is why the article quote "I discovered today that the Australian patent office has — quietly — revoked the patent it granted, in the year 2001, for the wheel" is even more absurd. It expired in 2009. This was "revoked" in the same way that the moldy cheese in the back of your fridge with a best-by date in January has been "quietly revoked".

Comment: Re:Theory only works for perfect tidal locking (Score 1) 69

by American Patent Guy (#47423563) Attached to: Study: Why the Moon's Far Side Looks So Different

The earliest images of the Moon (that I'm aware of anyway) are those made in drawing by Galileo in the 1600's. I don't know what measurements you're referring to to show this "perfect" tidal locking. When made in perspective between the time period from Galileo (400 years) to the time period when the Earth was hot enough to affect the surface of the Moon (4,000,000,000 years), I hardly think anyone alive can show that the Moon has and will always keep the same face to the Earth.

Add to that the fact that the Moon isn't solid and has a liquid core that likely rotates at a different rate than that of the solid shell, and you wind up with a system that isn't yet explained by modern science.

The reason that a rotating bowling ball set on the floor eventually stops is because of static friction. There is no static friction to stop the rotation of the Moon entirely; the angular momentum with respect to the Earth would slow in a complex equation that would diminish over time (but never entirely stop.) The present angular momentum is most likely very slow, too slow to be detected by man over the course of a few hundred years.

My arguments still remain that the maria of the Moon don't cover the near side evenly.

These guys have a long way to go before I'll be convinced that their theory is correct.

Comment: Re:Maybe because normal humans can't code (Score 1) 536

by bluefoxlucid (#47423447) Attached to: Normal Humans Effectively Excluded From Developing Software

Okay seriously, some people are retarded. They can't manipulate numbers because their brains are broken. Low-functioning sociopaths can't understand social interactions, and don't connect the pattern behavior together to fake it; high-functioning sociopaths recognize it as an academic subject, and fake it.

How is it hard to believe that some--perhaps many--tasks require an uncanny ability to do a certain thing, which nobody has? Maybe any idiot can learn to make a shitty program in Visual Basic; but, for the vast majority of people, no investment of time and effort is going to make them John Carmack. Similarly, some investment of time will teach you to sculpt; no investment of time will make you Michelangelo. Your creative writing courses won't make you Brandon Sanderson, Stephen R. Donaldson, or J.K. Rowling; the best you can hope for is being the next no-talent hack like Tolkien.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -- Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS

Working...