Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:cause and/or those responsible (Score 0) 643

by jd (#47497503) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17

Nothing is objectively known about the airliner. Everything, from Ukrainian air traffic control ordering the plane to descend to a dangerous altitude to who detected what, is all supposition and hearsay at this point.

It is my personal suspicion that the Ukrainian authorities were hoping for an accident of this sort and were intent on placing a civilian airliner in as dangerous a position as possible. Whether that was the case for this specific airliner on this specific flight is unclear.

And I'd argue that Korean Airlines 007 is a better example for this reason. The US had been using civilian airliners for spying on Russia for some time and doctored the evidence to remove Russian pilots radioing warnings to the aircraft in order to make the incident more incriminating than it was. Whether that flight was used for spying, was shadowed by such an aircraft, or merely happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, all becomes incidental. The accident was inevitable and the US government of the time was guilty of ensuring civilians would someday die for the benefit of military intelligence. It was merely a matter of which plane would be blown out of the sky and when.

In this case, the Ukranian authorities deliberately downplayed the risk of missile attacks on overflying aircraft and deliberately worked to place aircraft in the most dangerous air corridors that the airlines would permit. That is indisputable. Their opponents were known to be firing on aircraft and had shot several down. When your time to respond is measured in milliseconds, the nearest aircraft identification guide is mere hours away, to paraphrase what Americans often say about cops.

An accident was inevitable. The separatists weren't interested in avoiding one, the Ukrainian authorities certainly weren't. It was merely who would die for someone else's ideals. Whether or not this aircraft was deliberately placed in the path of a SAM battery is unimportant.

Both sides are therefore guilty. Both sides deserve blame.

Comment: Re:Angler PC malware? (Score 1) 119

Linux users are incredibly prideful and niave and feel vulnerable and will not believe you when you claim you are infected. The perfect demographic.

Arstechnica had something a few months back on Linux malware. It is easier to infect linux users because they feel they are secure and do not run AV software and many run outdated versions because they do not like gnome 3

Comment: Re:Angler PC malware? (Score 1) 119

The problem is if you install java 6 and early java 7 it will install plugins for your browsers.

Visit a website and you are 0wned as it runs as full admin since javaw.exe runs as a freaking service with admin privledges! ... facepalm.

I think the old myth do not click on ads is 2004 knowledge. Unfortunately recent operating systems have terrible GUI's so many run older flavors like 7 and XP which do not have the same level of protections.

It pulls my hair out to see java 5 and the same users whine I AM INFECTED week after week after week because some beancounter does not want to upgrade to save $1,000 means $10,000 in lost productivity.

Comment: Re:Misconception (Score 1) 119

Once I imaged a computer and opened IE to go download Firefox and other apps and my webcam went on instantly! Ad appeared doing a fake AV scan all from msn.com since computer had 0 updates yet it was 0wned.

Had to reimage again.

XP users really are in trouble and you don't need social engineering. Just IE, no updates, reader, or Java. Scary stuff.

It is why I don't run ancient operating systems, updates, and never use a root or admin account.

Comment: Re:String theory is not science (Score 5, Insightful) 142

by jd (#47493105) Attached to: Can the Multiverse Be Tested Scientifically?

It's testable, it's measurable, it's repeatable, it's capable of prediction. it's either the simplest model that meets these requirements AND produces correct predictions, OR it is not.

Therefore it is science.

Maths is a science, for the reasons given in the first line. Science is a mathematical system, because ultimately there is nothing there, just numbers. (See: Spinons and other quasiparticles.)

Comment: Multiverse theory (Score 5, Informative) 142

by jd (#47493093) Attached to: Can the Multiverse Be Tested Scientifically?

There are many multiverse theories and they can all be tested.

Many Worlds: The theory that there are no real "probability waves" in QM, merely overlapping realities that diverge at the time the "waveform" collapses.

This is an easy one. Entangled particles operate using the same physics as wormholes. If one of the entangled pair is accelerated to relativistic velocities, say in a particle accelerator, they will not exist in the same relative timeframe. It would seem to follow that if Many Worlds is correct, one of the particles will be entangled with multiple instances of the other particle, which would imply that every state would be seen at the same time. If the options are left spin and right spin, you'd see an aggregate state of no spin even if no spin isn't a physical possibility. And seeing something that doesn't exist either means you're in a Phineas and Ferb cartoon or Many Worlds is correct.

Foam Universe: This is the sort described in the article.

Yes, impact studies are possible, but they're only meaningful if you have enough data and you can't possibly know if you do. You're better off trying to make a universe, preferably a very small one with a quantum black hole at the throat of the bridge linking this universe to that one. What you will observe is energy apparently vanishing, not existing in any form - mass included, then reappearing as the bridge completely collapses.

Orange Slice Universe: This conjectures that multiple, semi-independent, universes formed out of the same big bang and will eventually converge in a big crunch.

It doesn't matter that this universe would expand forever, left to its own devices, because the total mass is the total mass of all the slices. Although they are semi-independent, they interact at the universe-to-universe level. In this scheme, because there's a single entity (albeit partitioned), leptons cannot have just any of the theoretical states. The state space must also be partitioned. Ergo, if you can't create a state for an electron (for example) that it should be able to take, this type of multiverse must exist.

Membrane-based Universe: This postulates that universes are at an interface between a membrane and something else, such as another membrane.

However, membranes intersecting with the universe are supposed to be how leptons are formed, in this theory. The intersection will be governed by the topology of the membranes involved (including the one the universe resides on), which means that lepton behaviour must vary from locality to locality, since the nature of the intersections cannot vary such as to perfectly mirror variations in the shape of the membrane the universe is on. Therefore, all you need to do is demonstrate a result that is perfectly repeatable anywhere on Earth but not, say, at the edge of the solar system.

Comment: Re:About time (Score 3, Insightful) 221

by DNS-and-BIND (#47491805) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power
Well, jeez, in the case of China, the alternative is "stark poverty" so it's not really a choice. Forty years of Marxism reduced their people to equality - equally poor. The Communist Party hijacked the people's revolution onto the capitalist road and it's been all up since then. And the EPA really does have uptight, business-hostile practices. Just ask the people who work there what they think about the very idea that businesses should be allowed to exist, much less make a profit.

Comment: Re:KODACHROME PATENT STILL VALID!! (Score -1, Troll) 44

by DNS-and-BIND (#47491515) Attached to: Appeals Court Affirms Old Polaroid Patent Invalid

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

Odd that you choose that "people who disagree with me weren't allowed to vote" part...that's pure projection. I see a lot of that attitude today and it's always by leftists who are utterly frustrated that opposition is allowed to exist. After all, their policies are correct and anyone who disagrees is a fascist-KKK-nazi. Seriously, you would not believe the villianization and dehumanization that occurs.

A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start, and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim. -- Leibnitz

Working...