Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Weak (Score 1, Insightful) 290

by jhumkey (#46781273) Attached to: Switching From Sitting To Standing At Your Desk
Omniscience . . . not omnipotence.

With omniscience . . . you don't need omnipotence. With omniscience you don't need ANY power because you know how to create (from nothing) or seize control, of any power, in any time frame, to achieve any effect.

Having omnipotence without omniscience . . . you can really only blow $hit up.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1558

by jhumkey (#46774249) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment
From the standpoint of being able to be "on par" with the government, so it remains such that "we" rule the government, and not the other way around . . . then nuclear weapons and such may be justified.

My father always tried to wiggle out of the right to bear arms with the "So do you want explosives too?" argument.
I fell back on the "line of sight" justification. If its important enough (protecting my family from a burglar in our home in the middle of the night) that I'm willing to stand within his "line of sight" and risk my life from his pistol/rifle . . . then I ought to have every bit the same amount of firepower to protect myself and my family in direct response.
That of course does NOT justify . . . planting an IED and being "safe and secure" 100 miles away . . . while others die at my remote hands. (And so, since I can be "far away" and out of danger . . . it does not justify the nuclear/biological or other weapons.)

Its hard for citizens or the government to justify taking away my right to defend myself when I'm in "line of sight" (imminent) danger/threat.

That brings up another point . . . "vigilante". We're missing a word in the English/American language . . . and end up constantly substituting "vigilante" for this missing word.
If a man is robbing my store, and police arrest him, and handcuff him, and take him to jail, and I gather my friends and torches and pitchforks and seize that thief from custody and try and lynch him . . . THAT is being a vigilante."
The alternate case is where we need the missing word.
If the robber is ACTIVELY SHOOTING AT ME, and the Police have arrived but I'm STILL IN imminent danger . . . I have no constitutional, legal, moral, or ethical responsibility to throw down my gun and "hope the police can protect me". At that point, I'm NOT being a vigilante, I'm . . . simply fighting for my life. A right which can never be abdicated or be taken away.
As soon as the police have the robber disarmed, and in custody . . . if I continue to fire, NOW I've converted to vigilante.
As an American (maybe a world) society, we've developed this delusional view, that "since we live in a civilized society" . . . I threw away my right to fight to live and have to hope the police get here in time and can save me.
And . . . it just isn't so.

(That's more than just a response to your point . . . just something that needed to be said.)

Comment: Re:Fine.. (Score 1) 312

by jhumkey (#46749553) Attached to: Russia Wants To Establish a Permanent Moon Base
I'm not sure I believed his explaination . . . but try reading:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=...

I took it to say . . . "breaking orbit" so it wouldn't fall back into the earth, would just mean it follows (or leads) the earth, in roughly the same orbit. That to get it headed into the sun . . . took a much greater effort on top of "leaving orbit".

And with chemical rockets (current technology) . . . its not cost effective. Even with something like a "space elevator" . . . I think the article was saying . . . "you can't just "fling it off" at the top . . . and have it travel on into the sun."
Read for yourself (I can't get to it directly from here at the moment.)

Comment: Re:We still have turtles all the way down. (Score 1) 594

I started with that question after reading the article . . . Quantum Fluctuations "of what", caused by what, in what? . . .

All the article seems to accomplish, is put one level (of turtle) below the big bang, and say QF in nothing caused the big bang.
We still need descriptions of the level below the "QF in nothing".
(Even if its not "nothing" . . . where then, did the "not nothing" come from?)

Nothing wrong with that (knowing what we know as the model now, and seeking to add a lower level). As another poster said . . . at one point "atom" meant the smallest indivisible thing. Now . . . we know there are 2? 3? levels below that.

We live with the model we have . . . until we can see the next lower level down.
To my simple mind . . . God is at the lowest level. Each discovery of "another turtle" . . . just pushes God one more down.
Though, I'm not offended by the attempt of some other posters to "beam energy into free space and bring particles into existence". They're trying to answer the "where is the bottom?" by saying there isn't one. Its a circular loop. I'm still stuck with the problem . . . who/what started the loop?

If I discover the cure for Liver Cancer in 5 years, and time travel back to now and hand myself the answer, then in 5 years when time travel is available I send the same answer back . . . who did the hard research/testing work to discover the cure? It seems to paradoxically fall in the same class as "perpetual motion machines" were I got something (the cure for Liver Cancer) for nothing (no research effort, just time travel).
That's what I find problematic with the attempt to "loop" the universe and displace religion/God . . . it seems to be evading the question, not attempting to answer it. But, I understand, many disagree (like Mr. Hawking apparently) and are happy to live with the "self creating loop from nowhere".

Comment: Re: Hello 911? (Score 1) 449

by jhumkey (#46630281) Attached to: WSJ: Prepare To Hang Up the Phone — Forever
You make an excellent point (I thought).
Plus . . . no Cable Modems in my parents house area, so DSL comes in over POTS. And no, some places in RedNeck KY don't have 4GL, heck, we're lucky to have cellular service. So going "full wireless" for everything (Security links/Medical/mmorpg . . . wireless just doesn't always cut it.)
One of the most important points everyone leaves out . . . Cellular Services had no sense of PRIORITY. Little Timmy calling Grandma after the "big wind" came through, to make sure Gamma's OK . . . ties up Cellular Channels, just like Tina calling 911 to say her husband is having a massive heart attack.
Every time a little wind/lightning/thunderstorm/... comes through, everyone jams the Cellular lines with trivial traffic. (Here at least.) Heck, it can even be hard to get a line on Friday afternoon as work is letting off and everyone is gearing up for the weekend. (In total honesty this is 1000% better than it was 4 years ago.) Cellular capacity seems to be built for the AVERAGE load, not to sustain the PEAK load. And its a darn shame, when 911 calls can't make it through, because hundreds-thousands of people are making trivial calls. In my experience, the switched network nature of hard line switching circuitry does a better job of getting 911 calls through, even when Cellular networks are flooded. So yes, even though its burning a hole in my wallet, I'll have a wired phone in every house/apartment I have . . . for as long as they're available.

Comment: Re:Hmmm... (Score 1) 983

by jhumkey (#46473625) Attached to: How Do You Backup 20TB of Data?
Tried that on the old IBM Series/1 EDX boxes we had . . . the "other side" worked . . . but, LOL, the read/write heads were so powerful . . . it would erase side 1 when you used side 2.
So . . . it let us get "another life" out of the disk when side 1 went bad . . . but we could never use two sides at once.
(Of course, these were the same computers that had belt driven Hard Drives, that had to have speeds set with a tachometer.)
Ahhh, the good ole days . . .

Comment: What is the advantage of a Bitcoin bank? (Score 2) 232

by jhumkey (#46347547) Attached to: Mt. Gox Shuts Down: Collapse Should Come As No Surprise
I've tried before, I'll try again . . .

(I don't have any but . . .) What is the advantage of putting all my Bitcoins in a Bitcoin bank?
I can see (for a few milliseconds while passing through) converting real works $$$'s to/from either a credit card or REAL bank account . . . into Bitcoins, then I KEEP the Bitcoins.

I thought that was part of the purpose/advantage of Bitcoins, they're Peer-to-Peer and need no bank.
It seems to me the only purpose of putting Bitcoins in a Bitcoin Bank . . . is to lose them when it goes under.
Physical assets (tangible cash, or jewelry in a safety deposit box) . . . sure, in a real bank.
Other than having a place to risk losing it all. What is the advantage of having a Bitcoin bank? When I can perform all my necessary transactions Peer-to-Peer, and only need have ANY funds "in" a bank . . . for the brief sub-second time it takes to convert it to/from some other currency.
And I'm not asking that they do the currency conversion for free . . . charge a fee.
But why do people "deposit" Bitcoins? I've searched, and read . . . I'm just missing something obvious I guess.

Comment: Re:what's "interesting"? (Score 1) 206

by jhumkey (#46120333) Attached to: It's Not Memory Loss - Older Minds May Just Be Fuller of Information
I do that too, but I'm pretty clear now that's "chemical pathways". You think "so hard" about the wrong answer, and reinforce the neural/chemical pathways to the wrong answer, that you need time to allow that to dissipate and suddenly the circuit flips to the right answer on the next try. (I am not a brain scientist, I don't even play one on TV, but I think its a safe bet that's what's happening.)

Comment: Re:Coercion is immoral (Score 2) 127

by jhumkey (#46093169) Attached to: New Zealand Schools Find Less Structure Improves Children's Behavior
Coercion is immoral WHEN DEALING WITH AN ADULT.

Children aren't adults. They can't reason like adults.
They're unfinished adults in training.
Swatting an adult on the butt because they started to dart out into traffic . . . would offend most people.
Swatting a child on the butt because they did the same . . . might just keep them alive long enough to be an adult one day themselves. Because you won't always be there to save them.

You may be right . . . swatting the child on the butt to enforce a lesson may very well be "Immoral" . . . it may also be "necessary" to train the child to not do dangerous things that can kill them.
(Unmarried with no children so of course I'm an expert. But . . . ) I'd prefer to have a live offended child . . . than an emotionally well adjusted casket filler.
Sorry if that sounds brutal . . . I don't intend to offend. Its just unreasonable to assume you can "teach" a child, in the same way you "teach" an adult.

I wouldn't "reason" with a two year old why drinking drain cleaner is a bad idea . . . I'd just lock it out of their reach. Yes, they have rights and emotions, and we want them to be non-traumatized and emotionally sound adults . . . but they must LIVE to achieve that.

Comment: Q had it right (Score 1) 458

by jhumkey (#46056253) Attached to: Stephen Hawking: 'There Are No Black Holes'
Q had it right . . .
When you don't like how the current theory is going . . . just change the gravitational constant of the universe . . .

Seriously . . . there are few absolutes in Science . . . just models. And perhaps this (todays) model . . . is improved over yesterdays. He's at least willing to fling something down and see if it sticks . . . that's how progress is made.

Comment: We're not supposed to complain about choices . . . (Score 4, Informative) 201

by jhumkey (#46018735) Attached to: Best skywatching equipment at my disposal:
But I will anyway. I chose handheld monoc or binoc . . . but really I use my Camera w/zoom lens and hand made Scotch mount . . . (good to see the heavens, better to share with lasting photos . . .)

And . . . shouldn't the last one be . . . I run the "Observatory"??? . . . I'd think the guy that ran the Planetarium . . . was limited to the presentations someone sent them.

Comment: Re:Depends (Score 1) 937

by jhumkey (#45910169) Attached to: Who Is Liable When a Self-Driving Car Crashes?
Yes I can . . . an override is a perfectly acceptable solution. (Even including tickets and losing my license.)
As for the previous response . . . its seldom presented as if we're "given warning". Its typically presented as if . . . RIGHT NOW . . . the autonomous device that knows better than you, is shutting it off NOW, and you're screwed.
I can remember when (mostly for emissions testing) cars had to have annual inspection stickers even in the backwoods here in Kentucky. (Heck,they probably still do in California). If you want annual inspections where I have some warning that the car's unsafe to drive . . . that's fine. But its almost always presented (and was in several of the preceding comments) as if the "autonomous car knows best" and can stop you RIGHT NOW. Even when RIGHT NOW might kill someone.
Yes to override (with accepted responsibility.)
Having said that . . . I stand by my "I'll never accept autonomous cars, until they can stop for a ball rolling out in the road, knowing a child is sure to follow." (And no, "the car can react faster" doesn't obviate the stopping distance required of a one ton car, no matter how much faster a cars reaction time is to begin to press the brake petal.)
I want the autonomous car (in restricted lanes, on restricted highways) but . . . we're still 50-100 years away from a safe one.

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.

Working...