To follow up on the lead and almost ignored first award: A long time ago I bought a Compaq Lunchbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.vintage-computer.co... in a San Francisco thrift store, looking to turn it into a portable Linux box. Curious about what files were on the drive, I discovered it booted into Windows 95, and autostarted a netwrok connection to a subdicrectory within the NSA's internet infrastructute. It signed in automatically and gave lots of access to ftp directories, too -- even root directories!

I am a hacker, not a cracker, so I didn't continue to compromise the NSA's site and went on to install Linux on it.

NSA's security has always sucked, I guess.

What does "increased in gauss" mean?

Pardon my awkward syntax; Gauss is the measurement of magnetic strength. Once the Gaussian field reaches a certain level, poles are formed. I don't know what the level required is, but it is true nonetheless. This is basic physics.

Are there no poles when only so little magnetism is present?

Yes. Below a certain level there, apparently, are no poles.

Eddy currents in what? Doesn't a current require some sort of conductor?

Eddy currents do not need a conductor nor medium, any more than magnetism itself does. They exist where (and because) the lines of force intersect with the poles -- or more nearly correctly, with an imaginary line drawn between the poles.

The poles create the currents and then those currents cause the poles to rotate? How/why?

See above. Eddy currents are coincidental with the erection of poles; they are not exactly caused by the poles. See any basic physics text which covers magnetism. Since they are energetic in a state in which there is no matter (yet) the energy created (released?) must act on something; the magnetic field is the only thing which exists, so this energy must either cause it to rotate or to expand (since there are no molecules to vibrate yet, there cannot be heat). I choose rotate because the math of the speed of expansion of the universe requires rotation rather than linearity. In either case, rotation or expansion make a magnetic field move, which field started as a stationary one.

But a rotating magnetic field is moving, so it can create a universe.

Why?

Both matter and energy, according to the Standard Model, are moving electromagnetic fields. This is basic quantum theory stuff. A stationary magnetic filed is not moving, so it causes no matter nor energy. Matter-and energy are moving magnetic fields. In a nutshell, increasing magnetism could have resulted in the creation of magnetic poles in nothingness (a stationary magnetic field), and coincident eddy currents, which caused the system to begin rotation.

a tangent curve is simply a sine wave as viewed from outside the system.
Could you explain this?>>

This comes from basic trigonometry. A sine curve is side a of a triangle over side b as the angle between them changes. A tangent curve is side c divided by side a. In searching to understand this, I discovered an article describing the tangent as being "outside" of the system of side a and side b, mathematically speaking. Since the effect of "dark matter-energy" is to increase the speed of expansion of the universe, which has been experimentally shown, graphing that increase would yield a curve that is not sinusoidal, but tangential. This would cause the universe to seem to have begun from a big bang, but only if it were observed from outside of the universe itself. That the universe is a virtual or apparent one is not an original thought of mine, but is fairly commonly-held by some physicists nowadays.

This does away with not only pi
Why? >>

Because a rotating universe can best be described in radians rather than degrees. Since a radian is 360 degrees/2pi, any pi factors in measurements will cancel out.

but also "dark matter/energy".

Why?/

What is called dark matter and dark energy is a construct to explain the increasing velocity of the expansion of the universe. If I am right, then the increasing velocity is an illusion caused by our being outside the actual universe and which makes simple rotation (sine curves) seem like tangent curves. See a book on trig or visit this site http://encyclopedia2.thefreedi.... In this case, I am assuming a rising curve with age of universe on one axis and size of universe on the other on a positive excursion of space and time. In this view, there are, have been or will be three other kinds of universe, one for each 90 degrees of the other 270 degrees of rotation. No dark matter/energy construct is needed to explain the increasing inflation -- just to accept the Platonic idea that we are seeing shadows on a cave wall. It is apparent to me he sees mankind as outside of reality, too.

Did that, raised the above questions.

Did I answer them for you?

since one of the "Four Forces" (magnetism) is self-organizing; Here what is more likely to my way of thinking:

Magnetism increased in gauss until poles began to form; with north and south pokes come lines of force, and from these, eddy currents form. These eddy currents are energy. This caused the poles to begin to rotate. Since a stationary magnetic field is not moving (by definition) there was no mass or energy, ergo no universe yet. But a rotating magnetic field is moving, so it can create a universe.

The math seems to confirm this: the increasing size of the universe might resemble a tangent curve (as opposed to a sine curve expected in the mid-20th century) or a straight line expected before that; a tangent curve is simply a sine wave as viewed from outside the system. The asymptote(s) appear to be a Big Bang because of this.

We (humans) are simply viewing the universe as a virtual system from outside it. This does away with not only pi but also "dark matter/energy".

I know many will not agree; I ask you to think about it in the light of newer discoveries which defy the accepted Standard Model, and to appreciate how this explains other oddities, too.

It's an old BMW. Ryzen7 = 7-series Ryzen5 = 5-series Ryzen3 = 3-series

Supporting each of approximately 8,000 homeless persons in San Francisco costs about $30,000 or $250 million total; presumably other cities' costs are similar. (Source: homeless censuses and San Francisco budgetary estimates, not including emergency medical services.)

Either government human services are not cheap -- or Harvard is.

Sorry -- mistakenly posted to wrong article...:(

Supporting each of approximately 8,000 homeless persons in San Francisco costs about $30,000 or $250 million total; presumably other cities' costs are similar. (Source: homeless censuses and San Francisco budgetary estimates, not including emergency medical services.)

Either government human services are not cheap -- or Harvard is.

Mint-KDE has never (NEVER) sent me to the command-line for fixes since ver. 12! Mint XFCE needed some fixes for power management, but never the OS itself.

I tried a very similar technique in 1971; it was a short shopping list. I still remember all thirteen items!

Real world, it is quicker and simpler to write a list. However, none of my shopping lists still exist 46 years later.

It probably works because our memories deal with objects real or imagined differently than with words.

You are aware, I'm sure, that posts on /. are, by necessity, time-sensitive, and, so, not well-edited. I would have revised much of what I said were there time.

No, presidents can't act without Congress' approval -- except for Nixon and FDR, which I noted. Both devaluations were done as a fait accompli and a surprise to political donors, many of whom are international bankers. The Federal Reserve was not involved. Those political donors, in Nixon's case, caused Republicans in Congress to support impeachment, which led to his resignation. That is my take, and I was a news writer at the time....

Richard Nixon was in a similar position before his forced resignation to avoid impeachment; Until he closed the gold window -- effectively devaluing the dollar -- he had enough votes to withstand his opposition. Those Republicans who lost fortunes because of that act turned on him and, suddenly, there were enough votes to impeach.

Curiously (or not...) Roosevelt had a movement to impeach move through Congress after he devalued the dollar from $20 per ounce of gold to $35.

Should Trump move to weaken the dollar, I predict he, too, will be impeached.

And, I might add, for no other reason, at least in his first term.

Time will tell.

"....There's nothing on Giuliani's server worth hacking.'"

There's no better security than that!

I thought everyone knew what the real story was. After the Soviet Union fell, some of their KGB documents and defectors showed they used UFO reports in the United States and several other nations to spread distrust of their governments. But wait, as they say on TV, there's more.

Later FOA requests some few years ago from the CIA and other agencies described how, after the defeat in WW2, the US gained several rocket scientists/engineers, including, famously, Dr. Werner Von Braun. Also imported were several experiment aircraft seized at Pannemunde (not sure of the spelling), including at least one prototype with a circular (saucer-like) wing arrangement. As I am quite an ancient dude (ignore the handle) I remember seeing grainy photos of some of these aircraft, possibly taken by servicemen, which were published in either or both Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazines. I was just a small kid at the time, so it was probably ca. 1947. These planes, according to the CIA response to the info request, were taken to a testing airbase in the New Mexico desert (think area-51) where they were studied and test-flown, and found to be quite unstable as they were involved in frequent collisions with the ground, causing numerous pilots' deaths. Contemporary reports of these crashes by civilians spread throughout the US, while its government denied the existence of these crashes and the erratic, saucer-shaped craft. It was the Cold War, and the USSR used their network to spread other fictitious reports (see above paragraph. Rinse and repeat.)

The CIA saw what they were doing and did it back to them, spreading false reports throughout northern Asia and then to the more populous western regions. Suddenly, UFOs were a worldwide phenomenon!

As Paul Harvey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... used to say, "And that's the rest of the story."

I never called AMD a success. I inteded to show AMD was at times kept alive by Intel needing its existence. Why cower behind an AC? I stand by my historical view.

AMD staying afloat in the face of Intel's market share is a pretty amazing feat. It hasn't been easy being the distant second while keeping up the pressure on the #1 player but AMD has kept going for decades. I expect AMD to continue to be the distant second competitor, but being second doesn't mean you are a failure...

Intel in the previous century needed AMD for Intel's own survival for several reasons:

In the 80s and 90s when Intel was considered a small player in computation, many contracts called for a second supplier of CPUs in case Intel failed or failed to deliver. AMD was that company, which is why it was a near-perfect clone of Intel chips until the 386. AMD kept its license to make x86-compatible, independently-developed chips for a couple of reasons, which evolved over time.

Later, when Intel's dominance in the home computer market made it a natural monopoly, Intel used AMD's existence to argue against US-Justice Department litigation.

Even later, AMD's better technical decisions, IMO, gave it a performance lead at the same time Intel made a serious tech blunder with the Pentium-4. AMD became a better processor than an Intel. So Intel mobilized their hugeness and designed chips which outperformed AMD both in performance and efficiency, in the Core series.

AMD became a player in the graphics chip side through acquisition. Intel tried to develop GPUs but proved to be inept at it. Now, Intel is contemplating using AMD GPUs integrated into their desktop offerings. http://www.pcworld.com/article...
https://www.extremetech.com/co...
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/...

Intel's relationship with AMD is existential.