Forgot your password?

Comment: Math? (Score 2, Insightful) 131

by meerling (#47443943) Attached to: How Deep Does the Multiverse Go?
"Our observable Universe is a pretty impressive entity: extending 46 billion light-years in all directions, filled with hundreds of billions of galaxies and having been around for nearly 14 billion years since the Big Bang."

The observable universe is observable because there has been time for the light to travel that far, which can not exceed the age of the universe. Therefor, if the universe is 14 billion years old, then the furthest we could see in any direction is only 14 billion light years, giving a maximum, diameter of 28 billion light years.
So why does the summary say it's 46 billion L.Y. across and only 14 billion Y. old?

Comment: Re:And this doesn't seem like a bad idea? (Score 1) 105

by meerling (#47408475) Attached to: Mapping a Monster Volcano
Yes, those explosions are really surface blasts, even the ones up to 25m deep.
It's kind of when you scratch an itch, it's not like it's going to break a bone or anything.
As to being the equivalent of a magnitude 2, so what. A magnitude 2.5 is in the you won't even feel it category as it's less than light which doesn't even start until 3.
A magnitude 1 is said to be the equivalent of blowing up 6 ounces of TNT.

Of course, if you still want to be afraid of that, I know a few dozen "invasive species" you can over-react about, and let's not forget the microscopic amounts alcohol in many of the drinks and foods that kids consume. :p

Comment: Re:Failsafe? (Score 1) 464

No, that would wreck the entire engineering of getting rid of the windows in the first place.
Besides, there are display systems with a reliability that is more than adequate, and it's probably redundant in some fashion just to be sure.

Hey, maybe they have a couple of Oculus Rifts stored in the glove compartment just in case the big screen goes wonky, or they want to play a quick game of Battlefield before leaving international airspace. :p

Comment: Re:Any Memory?? what judge will go on just that? (Score 5, Funny) 415

by meerling (#47397533) Attached to: Police Using Dogs To Sniff Out Computer Memory
Since the dog can't smell memory, it must have been trained to smell something about the electronic components. That's bound to trigger a LOT of false positives in the modern world.

This might be a fun thing to do. Get a lot of old flash drives, sd cards, and the like, the old super cheap ones of course, and stick them everywhere. Under the carpet, taped to the bottom of the drawers, in the hem of the curtain, etc. After 30 or 40 of them, somebody is going to get sick of playing that game, and it might be the dog, If you're really mean, store a picture of a treasure map on each one, and maybe some lists of random hexadecimal numbers.

It'll drive them nuts. To really get the point across when they ask, just tell them the truth, that it's a joke, there's absolutely nothing of value stored on them, and yes, you want them back and undamaged. :P

Comment: Re:Another child making unsupported claims (Score 0) 203

Sorry to hear you have such a fragile ego.
Too bad you would rather do some rather unhealthy mental things than apply a little skepticism towards some unsubstantiated and extraordinary claims.
Do you always have these psychological breaks when someone questions the hype-engine?
I guess the various summer guaranteed blockbuster movies tend to be a great source of unanticipated despair for you.

It boils down to this. Somebody with relatively little experience and training in a particular field has just claim he can outdo the activities of numerous others in the field, including full blown corporations, by an industry shocking factor of 10, and yet has shown no substantiated proof of this amazing deed, and yet some people want to lambaste the skeptics for demanding proof before cowtowing to the new supposed paradigm of 3d printing.
This is a case where his age is an obvious and extremely blatant indication of his unavoidably limited experience and training, which doesn't preclude him from having done exactly what he claims, but without the necessary proof to back it up, it's just more hype and not substantiation. Had this been a 34 year old landscaper that had been messing with tech for the last 8 years, and got into experimenting with 3d printing in the last 3, would you still be hailing these wild claims as the word of god and attacking those that want proof, or would you have instead be heckling the upstart that dared to claim he's better than everyone else in that field?

Somebody is being pretty arrogant and foolish, and it's not the skeptics.

Now it is possible the kid has found something that everyone else missed, it happens all the time in innovation, but don't put money on it until there's proof since most of those types of claims are at best huge exaggerations, and sometimes even outright lies.

Comment: Re:why? (Score 3, Insightful) 346

by meerling (#47377565) Attached to: Goldman Sachs Demands Google Unsend One of Its E-mails
Can, Should, and Will Only Due So With A Valid Court Order are very different things.

Sure they can, but how do you think every user of Google products will think if any company out there can say, "oops, didn't mean to send that, google, go fix my screw up and delete that from peoples inboxs."?

Should they do it? Maybe, but again, at this point we only have Goldman Sachs word that they 'should'. Maybe their entire story was fabricated and it was proof sent out by a whistleblower. Maybe it wasn't sent by a whistleblower, but it is proof of illegal activity that should be turned over to the appropriate legal or regulatory agency. We only have the companies word for it, and do companies ever lie about stuff like that?

So Google is going with "Will only due so with a valid court order" on this. Good choice. You won't piss off the customers because a court made you do it, and you won't get yourself in legal trouble because a court made you do it. Yep, this is the right choice if they have any functioning brain cells at all.

There's also a fourth option of just plain refuse. Claim the mail system is sacrosanct and it won't be messed with. Of course there are two big problems with this. First is almost nobody will believe you. Second is you are then looking at a big as legal battle you probably won't win because you are not the federal government. That's why I didn't list this one in the beginning, though I did mention it at the end to avoid having a million responses pointing this one out.

That's my say, disagree or whatever ;)

Comment: Re:why? (Score 2) 346

by meerling (#47377457) Attached to: Goldman Sachs Demands Google Unsend One of Its E-mails
Good point. What if it's proof of illegal activity. The account holder should forward it to the police, several different news outlets, and wikileaks just in case. ;P

And then do it again using something other than Gmail just in case they put up a filter to prevent that.

As far as I'm concerned, Goldman Sachs totally screwed up by sending confidential information to a member of the public in the first place. Their error is not sufficient reason for Google to panic or violate the trust of their entire user base just to fix someone elses stupidity.

Comment: Re:They hate our freedom (Score 1) 404

by meerling (#47308321) Attached to: San Francisco Bans Parking Spot Auctioning App
I hadn't thought of that yet, but it would totally put a damper on that kind of b.s., even more so if they confiscated the car and phone. (Evidence and all that.)
Though to be honest, I'm morally opposed to confiscation with no intent to return to the proper owners after evidentiary needs are met.

Computers can figure out all kinds of problems, except the things in the world that just don't add up.